Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-core-senml-versions

## Shepherd Writeup

This short document updates RFC8428 by specifying how to express versions for
SenML. A version is a bitmap calculated based on which SenML "features" are
active. Feature codes are used to express which features are available. The
document registers feature codes 0,1,2,3 for the first 4 reserved features the
5th feature code is reserved for when RFC8798 is used.

A new subregistry is created within the SenML IANA registry, named "SenML
features".

The document sets a hard limit for the number of SenML features that can be
registered (with only 48 codes left). Expert reviewers should then be very
conservative with the allocation of the remaining feature codes.

### Summary

Document Shepherd: Jaime Jiménez <jaime@iki.fi>
Area Director: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>

This document specifies how SenML versions are represented and creates a
sub-registry of SenML Features, which are used to calculate the SenML version.
The document is intended for Standards Track and updates RFC8428.

### Review and Consensus

The document was reviewed
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/5cWnixOE8nX4HTIy5w3rE4Whpo8/ ) and
discussed in several IETF meetings. Most of the comments were regarding the
hard limit to feature codes and therefore of version numbers.

### 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 named "SenML features" and updates the
SenML RFC (RFC8428). The draft is easy to implement, there is one
implementation from Ericsson.

### 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? - [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? -
[-] 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?

Idnits shows 13 errors
https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-core-senml-versions-02.txt
however the tool seems to be broken.

- [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. IMO
the document is very clear in other sections about which are the updates to the
current SenML registry and how they are updated. Please check if the current
text is sufficiently explicit.

- [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? - [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