Additional Units for Sensor Measurement Lists (SenML)
RFC 8798

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Barry Leiba) Yes

Comment (2020-02-19 for -05)
You have a typo in section 4: "obove", where "above" is meant.

 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

The following are comments from Murray Kucherawy, incoming ART AD.  Murray is getting an early start on doing reviews, and I’m including his comments into my ballots during the overlap period before he’s officially an Area Director.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Section 2: Just out of curiosity, why are some of the newly registered "VA"s all-caps and some all-lowercase?

Section 4: I'm a bit uneasy about saying the rules for this new registry are the same as for that older registry, with exceptions.  That means if the rules for the old registry change, someone needs to remember to consider whether the rules for the new registry should change in parallel, or whether something else should happen.  But if there's precedent for doing that, or the result is unambiguous, then we're probably fine.

Also, "six columns" followed by five bullets... I think I'd rather coax the scale/offset line apart.

Seems to me that Section 2 and all but the last two paragraphs of Section 4 should be in Section 7.  I've never seen an "IANA Considerations" section be a complete indirection like that.  But if we allow that, then OK.

(Alexey Melnikov) Yes

(Deborah Brungard) No Objection

Roman Danyliw No Objection

Benjamin Kaduk (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2020-02-19 for -05)
No email
send info
Thank you for addressing my Discuss and Comment points!

(Suresh Krishnan) No Objection

Comment (2020-02-18 for -04)
I could not read the normative references to IEC-80000-6 and 13 as I do not have access . I trust the sponsoring AD to have gone through them and verified that the item number references are correct.

Also the following text in Section 3 seems very handwavy and not particularly helpful. Is this necessary?

"    It is not presently known to this author how
      the upcoming revision of IEC 80000-6 will update this, but it has
      became clear that there is strong interest in using this unit
      specifically for the imaginary content of complex power, reactive
      power [IEEE-1459]"

Warren Kumari No Objection

Comment (2020-02-19 for -05)
No email
send info
No objection, but the inability to use '%' makes me sad.... :-(

(Mirja Kühlewind) No Objection

Comment (2020-02-18 for -04)
The shepherd write-up says: "The document is intended for Standards Track and updates RFC8428." However, this document doesn't seem to update RFC8422. I assume this is correct and the write-up is a bit outdated? Just wanted to double-check...

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Comment (2020-02-19 for -05)
No email
send info
I support Alissa's DISCUSS.

(Adam Roach) No Objection

Comment (2020-02-19 for -05)
No email
send info
Balloting "No Objection" in the sense of "I trust the sponsoring AD, and have no time this ballot cycle to read the document." I have skimmed the document for typical ART-area gotchas, and found none.

Martin Vigoureux No Objection

Éric Vyncke No Objection

Comment (2020-02-16 for -04)
Short, simple, and easy to read while being useful.

Just a nit, please use a section on its own for acknowledgments (at least the HTML version does not show it was a section)

Thank you for the time writing this doc

-éric

(Magnus Westerlund) No Objection

(Alissa Cooper) (was Discuss) Abstain

Comment (2020-03-19 for -05)
With everything going on I'm not going to have time to dig into this again before the new IESG is seated, so I've changed my ballot position to abstain. I do not think it is sound to publish this as-is with the reliance on a versioning scheme specified in an individual draft that does not have consensus, but I seem to be the only person who thinks that, so I will not stand in the way of publication.