Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-core-senml-data-ct
### Summary
Document Shepherd: Jaime Jiménez <jaime@iki.fi>
Area Director: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>
The document defines a new SenML field for indicating the Content-Format of
the data in order to facilitate automatic interpretation. Thus a new SenML
field "ct" is created that ads the Content-Format information. A Base
Content-Format field or "bct" is also defined when ct applies to all records.
The document also indicates that when content-coding is present, then instead
of using the content-format identifier from IANA (integer value) the full
content-type and content-coding are to be introduced in the ct field, appended
by the "@" symbol. So, these two are valid ct fields:
"ct" = "60"
"ct" = "application/json@deflate"
The document is intended for Standards Track.
Version -04 includes required terminology (Media Type, Content-Type, etc) as
well as the ABNF syntax of Content-Format-Spec.
### Review and Consensus
The document has been discussed on multiple IETF meetings and CoRE interim
meetings, and has gone through multiple expert reviews.
The last version includes terminology information and the ABNF as requested on
one of the reviews (https://github.com/core-wg/senml-data-ct/issues/2).
It was also decided to migrate the relevant terminology definitions from
draft-bormann-core-media-content-type-format into the terminology section of
this draft and to remove the normative reference to the previous document.
Consensus has been reached on the scope, content and level of detail of the
document.
### 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 registers:
* Two new labels for Base Content-Format (bct) and Content-Format (ct) are
requested from IANA Senml Registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/senml)
### Checklist
- [X] Does the shepherd stand behind the document and think the document is
ready for publication?
- [X] Is the correct RFC type indicated in the title page header?
- [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?
- There were no errors but some minor stylistic warnings on the ABNF check.
- [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?
- [X] 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?
'Does not apply'
- [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? - [X] 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? - [X] For any new registries that this document creates,
has the working group actively chosen the allocation procedures and policies
and discussed the alternatives?
'Does not apply'
- [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?
'Does not apply'
Back