Subject: [Asdf] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on charter-ietf-asdf-00-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 12:01:50 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-asdf-00-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-asdf/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To revisit my two items of feedback from the initial charter review:

** What is "Thing Interaction and Data Modelling"?
** What is currently outstanding to make SDF “IETF quality”?  I worry that the
text currently reads as “start with SDF and make it better”.

Here is text that could address those:

OLD
The objective of the ASDF working group is to develop SDF to an IETF-quality
specification for Thing Interaction and Data Modelling, working with experts
from OneDM and its contributing organizations.  On the way to that
specification, further functionality requirements will be addressed that emerge
in the usage of SDF for model harmonization.

The ASDF WG will work closely with the CBOR WG, home of the CDDL specification.

NEW

The objective of the ASDF working group is to develop a standards-track SDF
specification for thing interaction and data modelling. In the course of
developing this specification, further functional requirements that emerge from
the model harmonization will be addressed.

The ASDF WG will work with the experts from OneDM and its contributing
organization.  In the IETF, it will work closely with the CBOR WG, home of the
CDDL specification.

Explanation of the edit proposed edit:

-- s/an IETF-quality specification/standards-track specification/ which speaks
more concretely the quality bar expected

-- s/Thing Interaction and Data Modelling/thing interaction and data modeling/
because none of these are proper nouns.  I got confused in the initial charter
review because the capitalization made it read like this was a formal name for
something (proper noun)

-- s/working with experts from OneDM and its contributing organizations//
because this paragraph should describe what the WG is doing.  The reference to
OneDM and contribution organization should be noted with the rest of partners
(in the next paragraph).

-- s/On the way to that specification, further functionality requirements will
be addressed that emerge in the usage of SDF for model harmonization/ In the
course of developing this specification, further functional requirements that
emerge from the model harmonization will be addressed/ to make clear the source
of the functional requirements and why they can’t be articulated now.  If the
basis of how any deconfliction will be done can be noted, this would be helpful
(e.g., minimize disruptive change across the existing models in the ecosystem
now)

---

From: Niklas Widell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 08:15:37 +0000

On 2020-10-07, 21:02, "ASDF on behalf of Roman Danyliw via Datatracker" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    OLD

    NEW

I think these changes look good

PR here: https://github.com/one-data-model/ietf108/pull/10/files
(not merged to master yet if Carsten or Michael has comments, and not in DT)

Minor diffs: 
s/course/process/
s/organization/organizations/ - OneDM is the liaison activity of the participating organizations (OCF, OMA SpecWorks etc), so it is right to use plural here

Agree on Interaction and Data Modelling, on the fence with "Thing/thing" since an IoT Thing is a common concept. But no big deal, so it is "thing" in proposed -04.

Good point, moved

Good point wrt deconfliction (interesting word, had to check exact meaning), the idea is to follow normal IETF process (rough consensus, objections handled etc.). From OneDM perspective, the toolchains for model translation have been successfully updated to reflect the development of SDF so far, so as Carsten noted in the BoF, so no special treatment ought to be needed.

    -- 
    ASDF mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asdf

---

From: Roman Danyliw <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2020 01:38:57 +0000

Hi Niklas!

Everything below looks good to me.  I like your additional polish noted below.

Consider my feedback resolved.

Regards,
Roman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Niklas Widell <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 4:16 AM
> To: Roman Danyliw <[email-masked]>; The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Asdf] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on charter-ietf-asdf-00-03:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> 
> On 2020-10-07, 21:02, "ASDF on behalf of Roman Danyliw via Datatracker"
> <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> s/organization/organizations/ - OneDM is the liaison activity of the
> participating organizations (OCF, OMA SpecWorks etc), so it is right to use
> plural here
> 
> 
> Agree on Interaction and Data Modelling, on the fence with "Thing/thing" since
> an IoT Thing is a common concept. But no big deal, so it is "thing" in proposed -
> 04.
> 
> Good point wrt deconfliction (interesting word, had to check exact meaning),
> the idea is to follow normal IETF process (rough consensus, objections handled
> etc.). From OneDM perspective, the toolchains for model translation have been
> successfully updated to reflect the development of SDF so far, so as Carsten
> noted in the BoF, so no special treatment ought to be needed.
> 
> 
>     --
>     ASDF mailing list
>     [email-masked]

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2020 09:41:42 -0400

Please confirm the final charter text with me, and I'll make the
update in the datatracker.

Barry