# Agenda. 2025-06-18 Virtual Interim meeting. {#agenda--2025-06-18-virtual-interim-meeting} * Note Well https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well/ * Logistics for Meeting * Notes: https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-interim-2025-asdf-05-asdf?edit * Meetecho: https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/interim/?group=6af3cbd6-bd0c-42dc-b748-5464c0530e3b * github: https://github.com/ietf-wg-asdf/ * SDF extension for Non-Affordance Information * CB: needs to fit into SDF architecture, * CB: we need to make sure that we always have space for an ecosystem specific attribute/variant. So that the messages are mapped to something very specific in that ecosystem. * CB: a patch/delta makes a lot of sense for many usages, not just nonAffordance. There is a **t2trg** meeting on Thursday, which will deal with information models \_\_\_ at that meeting. * MCR: is patch critical to this proposal? * JH: it is not critical. * AK: the LCM model for SDF is interesting. Maybe side meeting in Madrid is good for this. * Digital Twin documnts * conversation about adoption, and if we are ready to do that yet. * WG Adoption of drafts * MCR asked about objections to adopting the document, and there was some feeling that they haven't been reviewed enough, but perhaps before Madrid. * NIPC updates and discussion * https://github.com/ietf-wg-asdf/asdf-nipc/issues * discussion about hackathon plans and the open source version, and about demo of cisco implementation. * would like to get through the open issues, requested a plan on side-meeting vs main meeting scheduling * \#102 - can broadcasts be used for affordances? No. * is a broadcast directed to a single device? Yes.. often. But heard by many. Seems to be BTLE only. * it will be closed. * \#100 - Action API, should this be a POST method? * a Post with a Location: return with a handle, with a handle that can be GET for status. * did not do multivalue yet, needs to have a new issue for that. ACTION. * does open API specification let us provide more detail about the content-format? * can add the content-format quality in an example? ACTION NEW ISSUE. * \#99 - * \#98 - read-all. * we do not associate an SDF model to a specific device today, so how can we get everything? * supporting read-all requires that the model be known to the gateway so that it can enumerate all the attributes. * An application could enumerate all the attributes itself. * AK: maybe if the list of models was loaded to the gateway, then we could optionally connect to the devices as an optional API call. * this option has very serious implementation considerations! * read-all would be nice, but the link to the model would be useful for other things. * this goes against having a centralized deployment model, with applications getting a list of models, maybe this is a SCIM problem. * not closing yet. * \#97 - request body over verbose * will just have a list of properties. Close. * \#96 - path elements to reflect "collections" * closed. * \#95 - openapi descriptions. closed. * \#94 - rename property parameter to propertyName * closed. * \#93 - less detail in responses. * success, 204 only. * removed parameters that was already in the request * allow JSON or octet-stream in reply. * \#89 - id parameter location * /device/registration looks confusing if "id=registration", so this is now consistent where id is. * closed * \#88 - action APIs with protocol mapping, * now under /manage, read/write deprecated. * closed. * * AOB * agreed to have another virtual interim July 2, 2025. Booked. * Bart would like all issues closed before Madrid.