ASDF -- AGENDA for IETF 112 meeting
-----------------------------------

Info
Meeting: ASDF WG, IETF 112, 1430-1530 UTC, November 12th, 2021

Location: Meetecho

Chairs: Michael Richardson and Niklas Widell
Meetecho: https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/ietf112/?group=asdf&short=&item=1
Etherpad/CodiMD: https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-112-asdf
jabber: xmpp:asdf@jabber.ietf.org
These notes at: https://github.com/ietf-wg-asdf/asdf-working-group-notes.git

Agenda
Note Well. https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well/

Logistics for Meeting.
======================

2a. CodiMD for notes https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-112-asdf

2b. Meetecho for speaking. https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/ietf112/?group=asdf&short=&item=1
21 people in the jabber room.

2c. Roll call/Blue sheet

Combined slides at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/112/materials/slides-112-asdf-asdf-wg-112-consolidated-slides-00

WG status update (Chairs - 5 min)
=================================

Niklas introduces the meeting and reports from OneDM.
(slide 8)


Getting SDF ready for WGLC (Carsten - 30 min)
=============================================

proposed Document Shepherd: Christer Holmberg

4a. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-asdf-sdf/
4b. Issue list processing

pull request #45: maybe the object would be implicit again.
(no comments on this, come back to it)

pull request #28: multiple namespaces/more-than-default namespace?
    if we do multiple namespaces, then we couldn't use JSON pointers (sdfPointer)
    mcr: why do we need to do this?  
    cb: because one wants to create a utility library in SDF, for instance, but in that case, why isn't it in multiple files anyway.
    MCR+NW: Is anyone really needing this?  Then we should probably let it go.    

pull request #27: limitations in FDTs.
    choice does not allow refactoring of common elements in output.
    no comments on this topic.
    
Tasks before WGLC
pull request #44: clean up CDDL style
pull request #40: 
collect editorial reviews: 

Top development needed.
future 1.
    pull request #29: version
    Eliot: the intent is that it can be used for beyond MUD files, but for any JSON content file.  This spec is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ol/
    CB: we may want to compatible (literally or culturally), so that the information can be extracted.

future 2.
    pull request #36: breadcrumbs, we lose the information as to what the sources were.
    
future 3.
    pull request #11. when do we say "sdfXxx" vs "xxx"?

Timelines in rose:
    - Implementation Draft SDF 1.2 in 2021?
    - Telechat date maybe in March?
    
Virtual interim meeting?
    - https://doodle.com/meeting/participate/id/9aA67WBb
      The deadline for responses is Nov 27 2021, 11:59 PM. 


ASDF new proposed work (Michael K and Ari - 20 min)
===================================================

4a. Protocol mapping

slide 20: SDF.next mapping files
draft-bormann-asdf-sdf-mapping.
    augmentation: SDF spec + SDF mapping -> fat SDF spec

slide 22:
NW: the mapping file is not breaking anything with the main SDF spec?
CB: where they touch in the area of qualities?  How do we maintain this quality space?

4c. Relationship

SDF relationships.
Carsten trying to present slides from Ari (who got called away on an urgent matter)
things are linked in more interesting ways than just inclusion (part-of)
   "connected", "next to"... 
    need to include that the link is a required part of the definition (in the class)
    but we also have links at the class level!

4b. Instances
A particular thing. 

SDF Use Case Features. Michael Koster (xx:21)
Where Ari says instance, MK would say "sdfRef"
MK: It's not an instance until it has a network address assigned.
Semantic Reference: 
CB: we have a pretty close/direction.... do we want to reuse the term sdfRef or not?
    _maybe we want to rename it more radically first?_
CB: the level of turtles needs to reach down to the level of the SDF    

Virtual Interim link is above

ASDF re-charter (Chairs - 5 min)


AOB?