Markdown Version | Session Recording

Session Date/Time: 12 Jan 2023 15:00

ASDF

Summary

This interim meeting focused on reactivating the ASDF Working Group's progress towards completing draft-ietf-asdf-sdf and moving it to Working Group Last Call (WGLC). Key discussions revolved around planning a potential physical presence at IETF 116 in Yokohama to raise visibility, reviewing the status of related documents, and strategizing to resolve the 17 open GitHub issues on the main SDF draft. Specific technical issues, including the info-block structure, sdf-type IANA registry, namespace handling, and the semantic interaction between sdf-choice and enum, were discussed with a view to prepare the document for WGLC.

Key Discussion Points

• Yokohama IETF 116 Meeting Plans:
  • The group discussed the merits of a physical meeting in Yokohama versus continuing with virtual interims. Concerns were raised about scheduling conflicts and the small size of the group.
  • A physical meeting could increase visibility and attract a wider audience, especially if paired with a demo.
  • The sense of the meeting was to tentatively schedule a 1-hour session in Yokohama to showcase ASDF and engage a broader audience, potentially leveraging the hackathon for demo preparation.
  • The chairs noted that the decision for a physical slot request can be withdrawn if plans don't solidify.
• Current Draft Status (draft-ietf-asdf-sdf):
  • The draft had expired but was re-submitted as version 13 (v13), incorporating a fix for a CDDL bug related to text already in the draft.
  • The group confirmed that 1DM requirements are covered in the current draft.
  • There are 17 open GitHub issues that need to be addressed before WGLC.
• Related Documents Status:
  • draft-ietf-asdf-yang-sdf-mapping: Maintained, still relevant, could potentially move to a research group.
  • draft-ietf-asdf-sdf-compact-notation: A useful tool, but development is currently resource-constrained.
  • draft-ietf-asdf-sdf-mapping, draft-ietf-asdf-sdf-relations, draft-ietf-asdf-sdf-link-type: These three documents were identified as the next priority for the working group after the main SDF RFC is delivered.
• Strategy for Working Group Last Call (WGLC):
  • Overall Goal: Minimize further additions, finish existing work, confirm readiness, and ensure extension points for future capabilities are available and backward compatible.
  • Open Issues Review (Grouped):
    • info-block (Issue 29 - version field, creation date): Discussion on standardizing the usage of the version field and rules for combining info blocks in composite models. The need for a creation date field was also highlighted.
    • sdf-type (IANA Registry): The plan is to define an IANA registry for sdf-type values. This is primarily a documentation task.
    • Namespaces (Issues 83, 85, 67): Discussion focused on handling namespaced qualities and given names. A proposal for an IANA registry for namespaces (Issue 85) was made to avoid conflicts. This is considered critical for defining extension points.
    • Semantic Conflict between sdf-choice and enum (Issue 87):
      • The group discussed allowing both sdf-choice and enum in a single model and the complexities of merging them, especially with sdf-ref.
      • There was a general agreement to keep the sdf-ref resolution process simple (merge-patch style) and to handle semantic conflicts (like merging an enum with an sdf-choice) as a post-resolution step, rather than embedding complex semantics into the merging process itself.
      • Michael Richardson noted that sdf-choice refinement (narrowing choices) is not well supported by typical merge operations and expressed a preference for external registries or relations for managing large sets of choices.
      • A need for clear documentation and examples of how null can be used in merge-patch to remove map entries was identified.
    • Interface with Other Documents (Issues 84, 76): Ensuring the base SDF document provides the necessary hooks and definitions to support sdf-link-type and sdf-mapping drafts.
    • JSON Schema/CDDL Definition (Issue 79): The generated JSON schema is functional but not easily editable due to repetitions. The discussion touched on using multiple schemas for validation and potential improvements in CDDL 2.0 for composing definitions from multiple files. Ari suggested providing CDDL fragments with extensions and automating their integration.
    • Editorial Issues (63, 54, 60, 11): Discussed clarifying top-level information, line breaking for 69-character width, updating SDF pointer examples, and meta-editing questions.
    • Readiness Checks (Issue 88): This includes automated checks, test cases (especially negative cases), consistency checks, and design reviews, to be conducted during the WGLC phase.
• Next Interim Meeting:
  • Tentatively scheduled for Week 9, Thursday, March 2nd at 1 PM ET / 5 PM CET. This date may conflict with an ISG meeting. A Monday in Week 9 was proposed as an alternative.
  • The goal is to have the draft-ietf-asdf-sdf document closer to completion by this meeting.

Decisions and Action Items

• Decision: Tentatively schedule a 1-hour session for ASDF at IETF 116 in Yokohama to increase visibility, potentially including a demo.
  • Action Item: Nicholas to initiate the meeting request process for IETF 116. (Due: Next week, followed by further discussion on the mailing list).
• Decision: Prioritize draft-ietf-asdf-sdf-mapping, draft-ietf-asdf-sdf-relations, and draft-ietf-asdf-sdf-link-type as the next set of working group documents after the main SDF RFC.
• Action Item (Issue 29 - info-block related): Ari to take a first step in revisiting the info-block issue, including the creationDate field and rules for composite models.
• Action Item (sdf-type IANA registry): Carsten to draft the text for an IANA registry for sdf-type values.
• Action Item (Namespaces, Issues 83, 85, 67): Carsten to draft text regarding namespaces for qualities and given names, including the proposal for an IANA registry.
• Action Item (Issue 87 - sdf-choice vs. enum): Carsten to add an example to the draft demonstrating the use of null in merge-patch to remove map entries, clarifying the handling of semantic conflicts post-resolution.
• Action Item (Issue 60 - SDF pointer examples): Michael Richardson to update examples for SDF where SDF pointers to input/output parameters are no longer used.
• Action Item (CDDL extensions): Michael Richardson to find and provide a pointer to a paper on using multiple schemas to validate an instance, relevant to mapping and binding extensions.
• Decision: Schedule the next virtual interim meeting for Week 9 (March 2nd), subject to confirmation and conflict checking, with a goal to have draft-ietf-asdf-sdf v14 released beforehand.

Next Steps

1. Yokohama IETF 116 Meeting: Follow up on the meeting request, discuss program content and potential demos on the mailing list.
2. Draft Revision: Address the open GitHub issues, focusing on the ones identified as critical path for defining extension points (namespaces, info-block usage).
3. WGLC Preparation: Complete the remaining issues, including readiness checks, test cases, and consistency checks, to prepare for Working Group Last Call.
4. Next Interim Meeting: Hold the next virtual interim in Week 9 (March 2nd) to review progress on the draft and prepare for WGLC.