All,
First order of business: Many thanks to all who have participated in the SLPF effort. We are very close....
We will have a dial in on Wednesday at 13:00 Eastern. I will create a more detailed agenda in Lucid, however at this time I would like to identify the items that I believe we have consensus on at the SC level so that we can focus on the unresolved issues.
I have created pull requests and queried this group for comments on the following items. I believe that this subcommittee has completed its discussion and has a recommended resolution on the following. Please advise if that is not the case:
SLPF-1: Modify the example to include a direction specifier
SLPF-2: Provide explanatory text regarding in the example why an actuator w/o specifiers may be included in a command
SLPF-3: Need to generate a TOC in the .md version
SLPF-5: Move semantics for common arguments to the language spec and simply reference here
SLPF-7: Correct a copy paste error in the 'boilerplate' material
SLPF-8: Cross check normative references
SLPF-9: Create hyperlinks as appropriate throughout document
SLPF-10: Multiple instances of table corruption
SLPF-11: Multiple typos and suggested wordsmithing
SLPF-12: Delete 'or higher' clause in conformance section
SLPF-25: Conflicts with SLPF-12. Currently going with SLPF-12
SLPF-13: Move traceablity matrix to annex
SLPF-14: Move definitions from conformance section (we moved it to the new annex)
SLPF-29: Definitions in wrong place (this is actually identical to SLPF-14)
SLPF-16: Correct the references
SLPLF-17: Set and use normative vs non-normative identifiers
SLPF-27: Cross check acknowledgements section
SLPF-30: Select example other than toaster for IoT device
SLPF-31: Check and appropriately modify the usage of the word 'product'
The following issues are a result of deliberations/ modifications to the language spec therefore we must modify the SLPF accordingly
- NEW IP RELATED TARGETS: The language spec refined the ip_addr, ip_connection and created new targets to accommodate CIDR
SLPF-6: ip_net target. <editorial note: The language spec changed the ip_addr and ip_connection target so we need to modify the SLPF to accommodate>
- JADN WILL BE REMOVED FROM VERSION 1.0 AND A SEPARATE SPEC WILL BE CREATED:
Makes the following comments OBE
SLPF-19: JADN as normative. This comment is OBE because based on deliberations within the Language SC, JADN will not be included or referenced in version 1.0
SLPF-4: Conform to Schema (vice tables) This comment is OBE because based on deliberations within the Language SC, JADN will not be included or referenced in version 1.0
SLPF-28: JADN syntax. This comment is OBE because based on deliberations within the Language SC, JADN will not be included or referenced in version 1.0
Will require the removal of Annex A, B and modification of table in section 3 of the SLPF spec
The following issues are OBE, no corresponding pull request.
SLPF-18: Need a transport section (addressed in front matter)
SLPF-20: Update use case (CISCO corporation provided use case)
SLPF-21: Default response should be complete (agreed upon at San Ramon CA F2F)
SLPF-22: Error responses (Current text is exactly as proposed)
PENDING ISSUE
We are going to need to discuss the conformance section of the SLPF.
There is some history here. At the San Ramone F2F, we agreed to require the orchestrator to support both addresses and five tuples rather than create more actuator profiles
At the Phoenix Face to Face it was decided to create more conformance profiles rather than have the orchestrator support addresses and five tuples
Running into issues In my attempt to rewrite the conformance profiles (and associated targets and clauses)
SLPF-15: Conformance targets (refine? Rework?)
SLPF-23: Need to divide the SLPF into more conformance profiles
SLPF-24: Profile Specification scope
SLPF-26: Conformance profile for options
Joe Brule
Engineering (Y2D122)
FNX-3, B4A335
410.854.4045
'Adnius ad retinedam puritem noster peciosus corporalis fluidorum…'