Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-core-senml-more-units

## Shepherd Writeup

The Sensor Measurement Lists (SenML) media type supports the indication of
units for a quantity represented.  This short document registers a number of
additional unit names in the IANA registry for Units in SenML. It also defines
a registry for secondary units that cannot be in SenML's main registry as they
are derived by linear transformation from units already in that registry.

The SenML RFC (RFC8428) is updated to also accept these units.

### Summary

Document Shepherd: Jaime Jiménez <jaime@iki.fi>
Area Director: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>

This very short document essentially creates a sub-registry of derived SenML
Units, which will be used by other SDOs like OMA. The document is intended for
Standards Track and updates RFC8428.

### Review and Consensus

Most of the discussions on this document dealt with which units to add and the
formatting particularities for them. Part of the discussion was too on the
authoritative sources for units, and the role of IANA on that. Ultimately the
document has gone through multiple expert reviews and has been discussed on
multiple IETF meetings.

### Intellectual Property

Each author has stated that they do not have direct, personal knowledge of any
IPR related to this document. I am not aware of any IPR discussion about this
document on the CoRE WG.

### Other Points

The document creates a sub-registry for SenML and updates the SenML RFC
(RFC8428).

### Checklist

[x] Means cleared.
[-] Means done but there are comments that should be checked by IESG.
[ ] Means not done.

- [x] Does the shepherd stand behind the document and think the document is
ready for publication? - [-] Is the correct RFC type indicated in the title
page header? The current draft says "Network Working Group" and should be
changed to "CoRE Working Group"

- [x] Is the abstract both brief and sufficient, and does it stand alone as a
brief summary? - [x] Is the intent of the document accurately and adequately
explained in the introduction? - [x] Have all required formal reviews (MIB
Doctor, Media Type, URI, etc.) been requested and/or completed? - [x] Has the
shepherd performed automated checks -- idnits (see
http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist), checks of
BNF rules, XML code and schemas, MIB definitions, and so on -- and determined
that the document passes the tests? - [x] Has each author stated that their
direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document has already been
disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79? - [x] Have all references within
this document been identified as either normative or informative, and does the
shepherd agree with how they have been classified? - [x] Are all normative
references made to documents that are ready for advancement and are otherwise
in a clear state? - [-] If publication of this document changes the status of
any existing RFCs, are those RFCs listed on the title page header, and are the
changes listed in the abstract and discussed (explained, not just mentioned) in
the introduction? This draft updates 8428 and is stated so in the Abstract and
the header. Idinits warns on the update but it shouldn't be a problem. IMO the
document is very clear in other sections about which are the updates to the
current SenML registry. Please check if the current text is sufficiently
explicit. 
https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-core-senml-more-units-02.txt

- [x] If this is a "bis" document, have all of the errata been considered?
`Does not apply`

**IANA** Considerations:

- [x] Are the IANA Considerations clear and complete? Remember that IANA have
to understand unambiguously what's being requested, so they can perform the
required actions. - [x] Are all protocol extensions that the document makes
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries? - [x] Are all
IANA registries referred to by their exact names (check them in
http://www.iana.org/protocols/ to be sure)? - [x] Have you checked that any
registrations made by this document correctly follow the policies and
procedures for the appropriate registries? - [-] For registrations that require
expert review (policies of Expert Review or Specification Required), have you
or the working group had any early review done, to make sure the requests are
ready for last call? The primary Designated Expert for the SenML Units is
author of the document, but there is no specific mailing list as with
core-parameters.

- [x] For any new registries that this document creates, has the working group
actively chosen the allocation procedures and policies and discussed the
alternatives? - [x]  Have reasonable registry names been chosen (that will not
be confused with those of other registries), and have the initial contents and
valid value ranges been clearly specified?
Back