Shepherd writeup
rfc8798-06

## 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