From Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu Mon Jul 1 15:26:14 2013 From: Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu (Lindsay Frost) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 13:26:14 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap Message-ID: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551DD78B@DAPHNIS.office.hd> Dear all, the FIWARE Standardisation Report is due this month and we noticed that there is some very good FIWARE input about NGSi which could be submitted into OMA, helping to fulfill our project goals. I have the help of NEC colleagues in OMA ARC group, who would be prepared to submit the contribution (see attached) on behalf of FIWARE ... *** BUT *** ..... BUT I need formal agreement from the co-authors of the draft specification, so Orange, NSN, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia members should please do as follows: (a) inform your colleagues in OMA that this topic is coming soon and ask them if they would like to co-sign it? (if yes, I need their email addresses) (b) confirm to me (so I can reference it if asked) that your company releases any of its copyright on the text in the attached zip files according to OMA rules (c) make sure your colleagues are aware that the material will be under FRAND licensing rules of OMA (inside NEC I already checked that actually there is no known IPR in the files, being based on HTTP) (d) confirm to me that you are working on these steps, so I do not nag more ;-) This nice activity will fail if I do not get replies from ***all*** copyright holders (Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica and Telecom Italia) as soon as possible, i.e. next OMA ARC teleconf is on 09. July. Please do reply positively! Please fwd this email to whoever should see it with a recommendation to support it! If anyone is AGAINST this step, please speak up. best wishes Lindsay Note: SAP is not an OMA member, but (b) and (c) and (d) still apply! ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NGSi.zip Type: application/x-zip-compressed Size: 279534 bytes Desc: NGSi.zip URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OMA-InputContribution-NGSi.DOC Type: application/msword Size: 95744 bytes Desc: OMA-InputContribution-NGSi.DOC URL: From Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu Mon Jul 1 16:38:46 2013 From: Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu (Lindsay Frost) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 14:38:46 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-standardization] Standardization_Plan_D11 4c - your input needed by next week Message-ID: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551DD87E@DAPHNIS.office.hd> Dear all, please forward this if my mail does not reach all concerned. Please note, I will probably "deliver" whatever is made available to me on July 15th, and then leave Germany for 4 weeks holiday without email contact, in the Australian outback. So please reply soon. The time has come to panic again and write the FI-WARE D11.4c deliverable, due in July. Attached is a (badly formatted) doc version of the previous deliverable, which I only use to conveniently ask your opinion on a few "change tracked" remarks in yellow highlighting. I ask everyone receiving this to confirm if you agree with this basic approach to updating ? 1) confirm who is "contact person" per topic 2) ask the contact person to supply (new) names of the "sdo delegates" 3) ask the contact person to re-write the informative texts in each chapter (see attached file for getting the idea). Note that the EC complained when they read it about lack of details/deliverables (e.g BigData, HGI, OneM2M, OMA NGSI, others). 4) write to old and new sdo delegates asking for immediate update of the tables of activities for each SDO (and chase them!) I ask the contact person for each topic to re-write their informative texts in the wiki http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Standardization_Activities within the next week (otherwise I cannot guarantee the material will be included in Deliverable). Note that I already contacted everyone in some emails, asking for updates (see attached, (15.03.2013 " Request your input for D11.4 re Standardization activity in your Work Package") but only FRP at zurich.ibm.com and alexandre.boeglin at inria.fr replied (thanks guys!) Thank you for your confirmation (or improvement) of this approach. Best wishes! Lindsay ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Standardization_Plan_D11 4b.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 826460 bytes Desc: Standardization_Plan_D11 4b.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Lindsay Frost Subject: Request your input for D11.4 re Standardization activity in your Work Package Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 22:16:36 +0000 Size: 20357 URL: From fermin at tid.es Wed Jul 3 15:01:39 2013 From: fermin at tid.es (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ferm=EDn_Gal=E1n_M=E1rquez?=) Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:01:39 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap In-Reply-To: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551DD78B@DAPHNIS.office.hd> References: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551DD78B@DAPHNIS.office.hd> Message-ID: <51D420B3.8060202@tid.es> Dear Lindsay, We (Telef?nica) agree in general terms that that FI-WARE work on NGSI could be a good contribution to OMA. However, before given our formal agreement as you request we would like to define "the contribution" more precisely. I mean, we are not sure if all the content included in the attached documents (NGSI-10 HTTP REST-ful binding draft.docx and NGSI-9 HTTP REST-ful binding draft.docx) should be submitted to OMA as initial contribution given that 1) there are parts that we consider at quite mature and other that aren't so matured, 2) the initial contribution to OMA should include only the mature parts. In particular, we think that the part about the binding for standards operations (including the XSD) is mature for contribution. The part regarding convenience operations is not so mature due to the following reasons: 1. Inconsistencies. E.g. in the NGSI10 binding section 2.1.2 (and subsequence sections) "/contextEntities/{EntityID}" and "/contextEntities/{EntityID}/attributes" have exactly the same behavior. Thus, why two have two different URLs at the end? 2. Some convenience operations are not "so convenient". In particular, the ones related with subscriptions, which use the same request XMLs than the ones used for standard operations (e.g. subscribeContextRequest, updateContextSubscriptionRequest). So, what's the point of using convenience operations here if the standard operations is "equally complex" to use? I would like to clarify that we are not proposing to leave convenience operations out of the scope of contributions to OMA. What I mean is that currently is not the right moment and that we need to refine it a bit more before that (fiware-ngsi mailist is probably the best place to do that). Let's focus our initial OMA contribution in the more mature part of our work: the standard operations binding. In the meanwhile, we will contact our Telefonica's OMA delegates to make them aware of this. Best regards, ------ Ferm?n El 01/07/2013 15:26, Lindsay Frost escribi?: Dear all, the FIWARE Standardisation Report is due this month and we noticed that there is some very good FIWARE input about NGSi which could be submitted into OMA, helping to fulfill our project goals. I have the help of NEC colleagues in OMA ARC group, who would be prepared to submit the contribution (see attached) on behalf of FIWARE ... *** BUT *** ..... BUT I need formal agreement from the co-authors of the draft specification, so Orange, NSN, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia members should please do as follows: (a) inform your colleagues in OMA that this topic is coming soon and ask them if they would like to co-sign it? (if yes, I need their email addresses) (b) confirm to me (so I can reference it if asked) that your company releases any of its copyright on the text in the attached zip files according to OMA rules (c) make sure your colleagues are aware that the material will be under FRAND licensing rules of OMA (inside NEC I already checked that actually there is no known IPR in the files, being based on HTTP) (d) confirm to me that you are working on these steps, so I do not nag more ;-) This nice activity will fail if I do not get replies from ***all*** copyright holders (Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica and Telecom Italia) as soon as possible, i.e. next OMA ARC teleconf is on 09. July. Please do reply positively! Please fwd this email to whoever should see it with a recommendation to support it! If anyone is AGAINST this step, please speak up. best wishes Lindsay Note: SAP is not an OMA member, but (b) and (c) and (d) still apply! ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 _______________________________________________ Fiware-standardization mailing list Fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-standardization ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Wed Jul 3 15:12:15 2013 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 15:12:15 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-standardization] Standardization_Plan_D11 4c - your input needed by next week In-Reply-To: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551DD87E@DAPHNIS.office.hd> References: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551DD87E@DAPHNIS.office.hd> Message-ID: <24665_1372857137_51D42331_24665_892_1_CBBCD6C304123F4AB23FAAE3055C8C0E0208199381EE@THSONEA01CMS04P.one.grp> Dear Lindsay, Thanks for your email and yes I support your plans and the approach so will drop an email to my team and SDOs contact persons to address the demand as I did already. And yes was nice for you to report that two of the Security Chapter SDO contact persons (Franz-Stefan/IBM Zurick) and Alexandre (INRIA) did reply and provide you with input at your previous call for update. Hope more will come . Best Regards, Pascal De : fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Lindsay Frost Envoy? : lundi 1 juillet 2013 16:39 ? : Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Ernoe Kovacs; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; mcp at tid.es; nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu; Miguel Carrillo; Nuria De-Lama Sanchez; Carmen Perea Escribano; lorant.farkas at nsn.com Cc : Ernoe Kovacs Objet : [Fiware-standardization] Standardization_Plan_D11 4c - your input needed by next week Importance : Haute Dear all, please forward this if my mail does not reach all concerned. Please note, I will probably "deliver" whatever is made available to me on July 15th, and then leave Germany for 4 weeks holiday without email contact, in the Australian outback. So please reply soon. The time has come to panic again and write the FI-WARE D11.4c deliverable, due in July. Attached is a (badly formatted) doc version of the previous deliverable, which I only use to conveniently ask your opinion on a few "change tracked" remarks in yellow highlighting. I ask everyone receiving this to confirm if you agree with this basic approach to updating ? 1) confirm who is "contact person" per topic 2) ask the contact person to supply (new) names of the "sdo delegates" 3) ask the contact person to re-write the informative texts in each chapter (see attached file for getting the idea). Note that the EC complained when they read it about lack of details/deliverables (e.g BigData, HGI, OneM2M, OMA NGSI, others). 4) write to old and new sdo delegates asking for immediate update of the tables of activities for each SDO (and chase them!) I ask the contact person for each topic to re-write their informative texts in the wiki http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Standardization_Activities within the next week (otherwise I cannot guarantee the material will be included in Deliverable). Note that I already contacted everyone in some emails, asking for updates (see attached, (15.03.2013 " Request your input for D11.4 re Standardization activity in your Work Package") but only FRP at zurich.ibm.com and alexandre.boeglin at inria.fr replied (thanks guys!) Thank you for your confirmation (or improvement) of this approach. Best wishes! Lindsay ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu Wed Jul 3 18:29:53 2013 From: Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu (Lindsay Frost) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 16:29:53 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap In-Reply-To: <51D420B3.8060202@tid.es> References: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551DD78B@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <51D420B3.8060202@tid.es> Message-ID: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551DE8C1@DAPHNIS.office.hd> Dear Fermin, I can fully appreciate your viewpoint. For the purpose of demonstrating FIWARE partners' commitment to standardization, your approach is perfectly suitable. Would you (or a colleague) be willing to modify the two documents (using change tracking) to delete the "not mature" sections ? Potentially the sections could be retained but replace the content with <>. Thank you for your feedback how you like to handle it. best regards Lindsay PS Dear Ernoe, please comment later? From: Ferm?n Gal?n M?rquez [mailto:fermin at tid.es] Sent: Mittwoch, 3. Juli 2013 15:02 To: Lindsay Frost Cc: Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena; Miguel Carrillo; Juanjo Hierro; luca.giacomello at telecomitalia.it; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Tobias Jacobs; Ernoe Kovacs; SERGIO GARCIA GOMEZ; CARLOS RALLI UCENDO Subject: Re: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap Dear Lindsay, We (Telef?nica) agree in general terms that that FI-WARE work on NGSI could be a good contribution to OMA. However, before given our formal agreement as you request we would like to define "the contribution" more precisely. I mean, we are not sure if all the content included in the attached documents (NGSI-10 HTTP REST-ful binding draft.docx and NGSI-9 HTTP REST-ful binding draft.docx) should be submitted to OMA as initial contribution given that 1) there are parts that we consider at quite mature and other that aren't so matured, 2) the initial contribution to OMA should include only the mature parts. In particular, we think that the part about the binding for standards operations (including the XSD) is mature for contribution. The part regarding convenience operations is not so mature due to the following reasons: 1. Inconsistencies. E.g. in the NGSI10 binding section 2.1.2 (and subsequence sections) "/contextEntities/{EntityID}" and "/contextEntities/{EntityID}/attributes" have exactly the same behavior. Thus, why two have two different URLs at the end? 2. Some convenience operations are not "so convenient". In particular, the ones related with subscriptions, which use the same request XMLs than the ones used for standard operations (e.g. subscribeContextRequest, updateContextSubscriptionRequest). So, what's the point of using convenience operations here if the standard operations is "equally complex" to use? I would like to clarify that we are not proposing to leave convenience operations out of the scope of contributions to OMA. What I mean is that currently is not the right moment and that we need to refine it a bit more before that (fiware-ngsi mailist is probably the best place to do that). Let's focus our initial OMA contribution in the more mature part of our work: the standard operations binding. In the meanwhile, we will contact our Telefonica's OMA delegates to make them aware of this. Best regards, ------ Ferm?n El 01/07/2013 15:26, Lindsay Frost escribi?: Dear all, the FIWARE Standardisation Report is due this month and we noticed that there is some very good FIWARE input about NGSi which could be submitted into OMA, helping to fulfill our project goals. I have the help of NEC colleagues in OMA ARC group, who would be prepared to submit the contribution (see attached) on behalf of FIWARE ... *** BUT *** ..... BUT I need formal agreement from the co-authors of the draft specification, so Orange, NSN, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia members should please do as follows: (a) inform your colleagues in OMA that this topic is coming soon and ask them if they would like to co-sign it? (if yes, I need their email addresses) (b) confirm to me (so I can reference it if asked) that your company releases any of its copyright on the text in the attached zip files according to OMA rules (c) make sure your colleagues are aware that the material will be under FRAND licensing rules of OMA (inside NEC I already checked that actually there is no known IPR in the files, being based on HTTP) (d) confirm to me that you are working on these steps, so I do not nag more ;-) This nice activity will fail if I do not get replies from ***all*** copyright holders (Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica and Telecom Italia) as soon as possible, i.e. next OMA ARC teleconf is on 09. July. Please do reply positively! Please fwd this email to whoever should see it with a recommendation to support it! If anyone is AGAINST this step, please speak up. best wishes Lindsay Note: SAP is not an OMA member, but (b) and (c) and (d) still apply! ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 _______________________________________________ Fiware-standardization mailing list Fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-standardization ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fermin at tid.es Wed Jul 3 18:40:13 2013 From: fermin at tid.es (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ferm=EDn_Gal=E1n_M=E1rquez?=) Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 18:40:13 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap In-Reply-To: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551DE8C1@DAPHNIS.office.hd> References: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551DD78B@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <51D420B3.8060202@tid.es> <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551DE8C1@DAPHNIS.office.hd> Message-ID: <51D453ED.5010406@tid.es> Dear Lindsay, "Would you (or a colleague) be willing to modify the two documents (using change tracking) to delete the "not mature" sections ?" I can try to do a first draft on it. Best regards, ------ Ferm?n El 03/07/2013 18:29, Lindsay Frost escribi?: Dear Fermin, I can fully appreciate your viewpoint. For the purpose of demonstrating FIWARE partners' commitment to standardization, your approach is perfectly suitable. Would you (or a colleague) be willing to modify the two documents (using change tracking) to delete the "not mature" sections ? Potentially the sections could be retained but replace the content with <>. Thank you for your feedback how you like to handle it. best regards Lindsay PS Dear Ernoe, please comment later? From: Ferm?n Gal?n M?rquez [mailto:fermin at tid.es] Sent: Mittwoch, 3. Juli 2013 15:02 To: Lindsay Frost Cc: Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena; Miguel Carrillo; Juanjo Hierro; luca.giacomello at telecomitalia.it; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Tobias Jacobs; Ernoe Kovacs; SERGIO GARCIA GOMEZ; CARLOS RALLI UCENDO Subject: Re: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap Dear Lindsay, We (Telef?nica) agree in general terms that that FI-WARE work on NGSI could be a good contribution to OMA. However, before given our formal agreement as you request we would like to define "the contribution" more precisely. I mean, we are not sure if all the content included in the attached documents (NGSI-10 HTTP REST-ful binding draft.docx and NGSI-9 HTTP REST-ful binding draft.docx) should be submitted to OMA as initial contribution given that 1) there are parts that we consider at quite mature and other that aren't so matured, 2) the initial contribution to OMA should include only the mature parts. In particular, we think that the part about the binding for standards operations (including the XSD) is mature for contribution. The part regarding convenience operations is not so mature due to the following reasons: 1. Inconsistencies. E.g. in the NGSI10 binding section 2.1.2 (and subsequence sections) "/contextEntities/{EntityID}" and "/contextEntities/{EntityID}/attributes" have exactly the same behavior. Thus, why two have two different URLs at the end? 2. Some convenience operations are not "so convenient". In particular, the ones related with subscriptions, which use the same request XMLs than the ones used for standard operations (e.g. subscribeContextRequest, updateContextSubscriptionRequest). So, what's the point of using convenience operations here if the standard operations is "equally complex" to use? I would like to clarify that we are not proposing to leave convenience operations out of the scope of contributions to OMA. What I mean is that currently is not the right moment and that we need to refine it a bit more before that (fiware-ngsi mailist is probably the best place to do that). Let's focus our initial OMA contribution in the more mature part of our work: the standard operations binding. In the meanwhile, we will contact our Telefonica's OMA delegates to make them aware of this. Best regards, ------ Ferm?n El 01/07/2013 15:26, Lindsay Frost escribi?: Dear all, the FIWARE Standardisation Report is due this month and we noticed that there is some very good FIWARE input about NGSi which could be submitted into OMA, helping to fulfill our project goals. I have the help of NEC colleagues in OMA ARC group, who would be prepared to submit the contribution (see attached) on behalf of FIWARE ... *** BUT *** ..... BUT I need formal agreement from the co-authors of the draft specification, so Orange, NSN, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia members should please do as follows: (a) inform your colleagues in OMA that this topic is coming soon and ask them if they would like to co-sign it? (if yes, I need their email addresses) (b) confirm to me (so I can reference it if asked) that your company releases any of its copyright on the text in the attached zip files according to OMA rules (c) make sure your colleagues are aware that the material will be under FRAND licensing rules of OMA (inside NEC I already checked that actually there is no known IPR in the files, being based on HTTP) (d) confirm to me that you are working on these steps, so I do not nag more ;-) This nice activity will fail if I do not get replies from ***all*** copyright holders (Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica and Telecom Italia) as soon as possible, i.e. next OMA ARC teleconf is on 09. July. Please do reply positively! Please fwd this email to whoever should see it with a recommendation to support it! If anyone is AGAINST this step, please speak up. best wishes Lindsay Note: SAP is not an OMA member, but (b) and (c) and (d) still apply! ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 _______________________________________________ Fiware-standardization mailing list Fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-standardization ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu Thu Jul 4 23:09:36 2013 From: Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu (Lindsay Frost) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 21:09:36 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-standardization] Standardization_Plan_D11 4c - progress so far Message-ID: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551DF2B1@DAPHNIS.office.hd> Dear all, I would like to personally thank the people who have started responding to my email from Monday! john.m.kennedy at intel.com has made some updates to Cloud Hosting thierry.nagellen at orange.com has identified 4 or 5 items to put next week into Internet of Things fermin at tid.es has promised support and some editing of the OMA NGSi contribution torsten.leidig at sap.com has started checking inside SAP about copyright for the OMA contribution, and has already updated parts of WP3 in the wiki sergg at tid.es has started collecting material with his WP6 team p.amon at siemens.com has already started pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com for Security part is coordinating more inputs, on top of the contributions already made by FRP at zurich.ibm.com and alexandre.boeglin at inria.fr pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it has started collecting material for I2ND This is very encouraging start and I hope everyone who has not contacted me is nevertheless already started :-) best wishes Lindsay From: fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Lindsay Frost Sent: Montag, 1. Juli 2013 16:39 To: Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Ernoe Kovacs; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; mcp at tid.es; nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu; Miguel Carrillo; Nuria De-Lama Sanchez; Carmen Perea Escribano; lorant.farkas at nsn.com Cc: Ernoe Kovacs Subject: [Fiware-standardization] Standardization_Plan_D11 4c - your input needed by next week Importance: High Dear all, please forward this if my mail does not reach all concerned. Please note, I will probably "deliver" whatever is made available to me on July 15th, and then leave Germany for 4 weeks holiday without email contact, in the Australian outback. So please reply soon. The time has come to panic again and write the FI-WARE D11.4c deliverable, due in July. Attached is a (badly formatted) doc version of the previous deliverable, which I only use to conveniently ask your opinion on a few "change tracked" remarks in yellow highlighting. I ask everyone receiving this to confirm if you agree with this basic approach to updating ? 1) confirm who is "contact person" per topic 2) ask the contact person to supply (new) names of the "sdo delegates" 3) ask the contact person to re-write the informative texts in each chapter (see attached file for getting the idea). Note that the EC complained when they read it about lack of details/deliverables (e.g BigData, HGI, OneM2M, OMA NGSI, others). 4) write to old and new sdo delegates asking for immediate update of the tables of activities for each SDO (and chase them!) I ask the contact person for each topic to re-write their informative texts in the wiki http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Standardization_Activities within the next week (otherwise I cannot guarantee the material will be included in Deliverable). Note that I already contacted everyone in some emails, asking for updates (see attached, (15.03.2013 " Request your input for D11.4 re Standardization activity in your Work Package") but only FRP at zurich.ibm.com and alexandre.boeglin at inria.fr replied (thanks guys!) Thank you for your confirmation (or improvement) of this approach. Best wishes! Lindsay ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu Tue Jul 9 10:10:48 2013 From: Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu (Lindsay Frost) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 08:10:48 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-standardization] Standardization_Plan_D11 4c - your input needed Message-ID: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551E0B22@DAPHNIS.office.hd> Dear Pascal and all, I am going through each page "with fresh eyes" to imagine what new input the EC should expect. Probably you are doing the same for your area, so I would like to share my notes (attached). Thank you for updating http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Mapping_Security before this week Friday so I have a chance to review. best wishes Lindsay From: BISSON Pascal [mailto:pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 3. Juli 2013 15:12 To: Lindsay Frost; Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Ernoe Kovacs; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; mcp at tid.es; nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu; Miguel Carrillo; Nuria De-Lama Sanchez; Carmen Perea Escribano; lorant.farkas at nsn.com Cc: Ernoe Kovacs Subject: RE: [Fiware-standardization] Standardization_Plan_D11 4c - your input needed by next week Dear Lindsay, Thanks for your email and yes I support your plans and the approach so will drop an email to my team and SDOs contact persons to address the demand as I did already. And yes was nice for you to report that two of the Security Chapter SDO contact persons (Franz-Stefan/IBM Zurick) and Alexandre (INRIA) did reply and provide you with input at your previous call for update. Hope more will come . Best Regards, Pascal De : fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Lindsay Frost Envoy? : lundi 1 juillet 2013 16:39 ? : Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Ernoe Kovacs; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; mcp at tid.es; nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu; Miguel Carrillo; Nuria De-Lama Sanchez; Carmen Perea Escribano; lorant.farkas at nsn.com Cc : Ernoe Kovacs Objet : [Fiware-standardization] Standardization_Plan_D11 4c - your input needed by next week Importance : Haute Dear all, please forward this if my mail does not reach all concerned. Please note, I will probably "deliver" whatever is made available to me on July 15th, and then leave Germany for 4 weeks holiday without email contact, in the Australian outback. So please reply soon. The time has come to panic again and write the FI-WARE D11.4c deliverable, due in July. Attached is a (badly formatted) doc version of the previous deliverable, which I only use to conveniently ask your opinion on a few "change tracked" remarks in yellow highlighting. I ask everyone receiving this to confirm if you agree with this basic approach to updating ? 1) confirm who is "contact person" per topic 2) ask the contact person to supply (new) names of the "sdo delegates" 3) ask the contact person to re-write the informative texts in each chapter (see attached file for getting the idea). Note that the EC complained when they read it about lack of details/deliverables (e.g BigData, HGI, OneM2M, OMA NGSI, others). 4) write to old and new sdo delegates asking for immediate update of the tables of activities for each SDO (and chase them!) I ask the contact person for each topic to re-write their informative texts in the wiki http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Standardization_Activities within the next week (otherwise I cannot guarantee the material will be included in Deliverable). Note that I already contacted everyone in some emails, asking for updates (see attached, (15.03.2013 " Request your input for D11.4 re Standardization activity in your Work Package") but only FRP at zurich.ibm.com and alexandre.boeglin at inria.fr replied (thanks guys!) Thank you for your confirmation (or improvement) of this approach. Best wishes! Lindsay ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Mapping Security_v0.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 350393 bytes Desc: Mapping Security_v0.docx URL: From fermin at tid.es Tue Jul 9 10:41:27 2013 From: fermin at tid.es (=?UTF-8?B?RmVybcOtbiBHYWzDoW4gTcOhcnF1ZXo=?=) Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 10:41:27 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap In-Reply-To: <51D453ED.5010406@tid.es> References: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551DD78B@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <51D420B3.8060202@tid.es> <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551DE8C1@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <51D453ED.5010406@tid.es> Message-ID: <51DBCCB7.6080901@tid.es> Dear Lindsay, Please find attached the draft mentioned in my previous email. Best regards, ------ Ferm?n El 03/07/2013 18:40, Ferm?n Gal?n M?rquez escribi?: Dear Lindsay, "Would you (or a colleague) be willing to modify the two documents (using change tracking) to delete the ?not mature? sections ?" I can try to do a first draft on it. Best regards, ------ Ferm?n El 03/07/2013 18:29, Lindsay Frost escribi?: Dear Fermin, I can fully appreciate your viewpoint. For the purpose of demonstrating FIWARE partners? commitment to standardization, your approach is perfectly suitable. Would you (or a colleague) be willing to modify the two documents (using change tracking) to delete the ?not mature? sections ? Potentially the sections could be retained but replace the content with <>. Thank you for your feedback how you like to handle it. best regards Lindsay PS Dear Ernoe, please comment later? From: Ferm?n Gal?n M?rquez [mailto:fermin at tid.es] Sent: Mittwoch, 3. Juli 2013 15:02 To: Lindsay Frost Cc: Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena; Miguel Carrillo; Juanjo Hierro; luca.giacomello at telecomitalia.it; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Tobias Jacobs; Ernoe Kovacs; SERGIO GARCIA GOMEZ; CARLOS RALLI UCENDO Subject: Re: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap Dear Lindsay, We (Telef?nica) agree in general terms that that FI-WARE work on NGSI could be a good contribution to OMA. However, before given our formal agreement as you request we would like to define "the contribution" more precisely. I mean, we are not sure if all the content included in the attached documents (NGSI-10 HTTP REST-ful binding draft.docx and NGSI-9 HTTP REST-ful binding draft.docx) should be submitted to OMA as initial contribution given that 1) there are parts that we consider at quite mature and other that aren't so matured, 2) the initial contribution to OMA should include only the mature parts. In particular, we think that the part about the binding for standards operations (including the XSD) is mature for contribution. The part regarding convenience operations is not so mature due to the following reasons: 1. Inconsistencies. E.g. in the NGSI10 binding section 2.1.2 (and subsequence sections) "/contextEntities/{EntityID}" and "/contextEntities/{EntityID}/attributes" have exactly the same behavior. Thus, why two have two different URLs at the end? 2. Some convenience operations are not "so convenient". In particular, the ones related with subscriptions, which use the same request XMLs than the ones used for standard operations (e.g. subscribeContextRequest, updateContextSubscriptionRequest). So, what's the point of using convenience operations here if the standard operations is "equally complex" to use? I would like to clarify that we are not proposing to leave convenience operations out of the scope of contributions to OMA. What I mean is that currently is not the right moment and that we need to refine it a bit more before that (fiware-ngsi mailist is probably the best place to do that). Let's focus our initial OMA contribution in the more mature part of our work: the standard operations binding. In the meanwhile, we will contact our Telefonica's OMA delegates to make them aware of this. Best regards, ------ Ferm?n El 01/07/2013 15:26, Lindsay Frost escribi?: Dear all, the FIWARE Standardisation Report is due this month and we noticed that there is some very good FIWARE input about NGSi which could be submitted into OMA, helping to fulfill our project goals. I have the help of NEC colleagues in OMA ARC group, who would be prepared to submit the contribution (see attached) on behalf of FIWARE ... *** BUT *** ..... BUT I need formal agreement from the co-authors of the draft specification, so Orange, NSN, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia members should please do as follows: (a) inform your colleagues in OMA that this topic is coming soon and ask them if they would like to co-sign it? (if yes, I need their email addresses) (b) confirm to me (so I can reference it if asked) that your company releases any of its copyright on the text in the attached zip files according to OMA rules (c) make sure your colleagues are aware that the material will be under FRAND licensing rules of OMA (inside NEC I already checked that actually there is no known IPR in the files, being based on HTTP) (d) confirm to me that you are working on these steps, so I do not nag more ;-) This nice activity will fail if I do not get replies from ***all*** copyright holders (Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica and Telecom Italia) as soon as possible, i.e. next OMA ARC teleconf is on 09. July. Please do reply positively! Please fwd this email to whoever should see it with a recommendation to support it! If anyone is AGAINST this step, please speak up. best wishes Lindsay Note: SAP is not an OMA member, but (b) and (c) and (d) still apply! ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 _______________________________________________ Fiware-standardization mailing list Fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-standardization ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx _______________________________________________ Fiware-standardization mailing list Fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-standardization ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NGSI-09 HTTP REST-ful binding draft+FGM_2013-07-08.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 165847 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NGSI-10 HTTP REST-ful binding draft+FGM_2013-07-08.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 179300 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fermin at tid.es Tue Jul 9 11:55:50 2013 From: fermin at tid.es (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ferm=EDn_Gal=E1n_M=E1rquez?=) Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 11:55:50 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap In-Reply-To: <8755F290097BD941865DC4245B335D2D38FBBD76@DAPHNIS.office.hd> References: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551DD78B@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <51D420B3.8060202@tid.es> <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551DE8C1@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <51D453ED.5010406@tid.es> <8755F290097BD941865DC4245B335D2D38FBBD76@DAPHNIS.office.hd> Message-ID: <51DBDE26.9010407@tid.es> Dear Tobias, I agree in that there is a significant effort put in these documents, thus more reasons to use the best strategy towards OMA in order to get all our contributions standardized. And, in our opinion, the best strategy is to start with the mature part (standard operations), then continue (if we are successful) with the not so mature part (convenience operations). I have experience in other standarization bodies (I'm one of the contributors to OVF 2.0 in DMTF) and too ambitious contributions use to fail when working groups/committees think that proposals are not aligned with the current standard or are not mature. In that cases they tell you "thanks, re-do it and try again" and you have to wait months to get another chance. In our case, our best option is the standard operations binding as it is very aligned with the existing OMA standard (it is basically a REST XML binding of the existing OMA document) and it is very mature (we have even an XSD document for all the XML elements involved). Regarding "version chaos", I'm not sure what do you mean (maybe it was something that happens before I joined to the project)... but a proper document management (pe. using a "changelog" table in the documents and Word trac control, using docman instead of SVN to store documents, etc.) could solve it. Regarding document preparation efforts, I think is pretty simple to prepare documents when you have all the material. In particular, preparing the reduced version of the document has taken around one hour (very small effort). Reintroducing existing convenience functions part would take around the same effort. Regarding, justification (to whom?) I think is a matter of explaining our strategy. As I told in my previous email: "we are not proposing to leave convenience operations out of the scope of contributions to OMA. What I mean is that currently is not the right moment and that we need to refine it a bit more before that (fiware-ngsi mailist is probably the best place to do that). Let's focus our initial OMA contribution in the more mature part of our work: the standard operations binding." In addition, it would be great to know how OMA internally works. E.g. they have WPs? how the WPs are governed? what is the process to evolve standards with contributions (e.g. ballots to include ? A briefing on "OMA governance and procedures" will be highly welcome. Best regards, ------ Ferm?n El 08/07/2013 15:10, Tobias Jacobs escribi?: Hi Fermin, the feeling from the NEC people in WP5 is more that we should submit the whole standard document, not only because our work package has put considerable effort into it. I agree that the maturity level is not 100%, but proposing bug fixes later is always possible without big problems, and anyway also the abstract specs need some bug fixes and clarification as we have identified in the project. What is happening now is that the interface is implemented by a number of GEs and that the interoperability is tested, so if there is a good chance that bugs will be found and reported it is now and in the next months. On the other hand, if we for now remove the convenience operations, we - will have another version chaos and inconsistency between the FI-WARE binding and the OMA binding - will have much more effort: now for making a new reduced version, and later for re-introducing the convenience functions if we want them to become part of the standard. - might potentially have problems justifying our efforts in the binding if it turns out that only the straightforward part (one resource per operation, direct translation of data structures into xml schemas) is proposed for standardization. What do you think? Thanks and best regards Tobias From: Ferm?n Gal?n M?rquez [mailto:fermin at tid.es] Sent: Mittwoch, 3. Juli 2013 18:40 To: Lindsay Frost Cc: Ernoe Kovacs; Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena; Miguel Carrillo; Juanjo Hierro; luca.giacomello at telecomitalia.it; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Tobias Jacobs; SERGIO GARCIA GOMEZ; CARLOS RALLI UCENDO Subject: Re: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap Dear Lindsay, "Would you (or a colleague) be willing to modify the two documents (using change tracking) to delete the "not mature" sections ?" I can try to do a first draft on it. Best regards, ------ Ferm?n El 03/07/2013 18:29, Lindsay Frost escribi?: Dear Fermin, I can fully appreciate your viewpoint. For the purpose of demonstrating FIWARE partners' commitment to standardization, your approach is perfectly suitable. Would you (or a colleague) be willing to modify the two documents (using change tracking) to delete the "not mature" sections ? Potentially the sections could be retained but replace the content with <>. Thank you for your feedback how you like to handle it. best regards Lindsay PS Dear Ernoe, please comment later? From: Ferm?n Gal?n M?rquez [mailto:fermin at tid.es] Sent: Mittwoch, 3. Juli 2013 15:02 To: Lindsay Frost Cc: Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena; Miguel Carrillo; Juanjo Hierro; luca.giacomello at telecomitalia.it; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Tobias Jacobs; Ernoe Kovacs; SERGIO GARCIA GOMEZ; CARLOS RALLI UCENDO Subject: Re: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap Dear Lindsay, We (Telef?nica) agree in general terms that that FI-WARE work on NGSI could be a good contribution to OMA. However, before given our formal agreement as you request we would like to define "the contribution" more precisely. I mean, we are not sure if all the content included in the attached documents (NGSI-10 HTTP REST-ful binding draft.docx and NGSI-9 HTTP REST-ful binding draft.docx) should be submitted to OMA as initial contribution given that 1) there are parts that we consider at quite mature and other that aren't so matured, 2) the initial contribution to OMA should include only the mature parts. In particular, we think that the part about the binding for standards operations (including the XSD) is mature for contribution. The part regarding convenience operations is not so mature due to the following reasons: 1. Inconsistencies. E.g. in the NGSI10 binding section 2.1.2 (and subsequence sections) "/contextEntities/{EntityID}" and "/contextEntities/{EntityID}/attributes" have exactly the same behavior. Thus, why two have two different URLs at the end? 2. Some convenience operations are not "so convenient". In particular, the ones related with subscriptions, which use the same request XMLs than the ones used for standard operations (e.g. subscribeContextRequest, updateContextSubscriptionRequest). So, what's the point of using convenience operations here if the standard operations is "equally complex" to use? I would like to clarify that we are not proposing to leave convenience operations out of the scope of contributions to OMA. What I mean is that currently is not the right moment and that we need to refine it a bit more before that (fiware-ngsi mailist is probably the best place to do that). Let's focus our initial OMA contribution in the more mature part of our work: the standard operations binding. In the meanwhile, we will contact our Telefonica's OMA delegates to make them aware of this. Best regards, ------ Ferm?n El 01/07/2013 15:26, Lindsay Frost escribi?: Dear all, the FIWARE Standardisation Report is due this month and we noticed that there is some very good FIWARE input about NGSi which could be submitted into OMA, helping to fulfill our project goals. I have the help of NEC colleagues in OMA ARC group, who would be prepared to submit the contribution (see attached) on behalf of FIWARE ... *** BUT *** ..... BUT I need formal agreement from the co-authors of the draft specification, so Orange, NSN, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia members should please do as follows: (a) inform your colleagues in OMA that this topic is coming soon and ask them if they would like to co-sign it? (if yes, I need their email addresses) (b) confirm to me (so I can reference it if asked) that your company releases any of its copyright on the text in the attached zip files according to OMA rules (c) make sure your colleagues are aware that the material will be under FRAND licensing rules of OMA (inside NEC I already checked that actually there is no known IPR in the files, being based on HTTP) (d) confirm to me that you are working on these steps, so I do not nag more ;-) This nice activity will fail if I do not get replies from ***all*** copyright holders (Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica and Telecom Italia) as soon as possible, i.e. next OMA ARC teleconf is on 09. July. Please do reply positively! Please fwd this email to whoever should see it with a recommendation to support it! If anyone is AGAINST this step, please speak up. best wishes Lindsay Note: SAP is not an OMA member, but (b) and (c) and (d) still apply! ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 _______________________________________________ Fiware-standardization mailing list Fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-standardization ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thierry.nagellen at orange.com Tue Jul 9 13:22:19 2013 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:22:19 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap In-Reply-To: <51DBDE26.9010407@tid.es> References: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551DD78B@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <51D420B3.8060202@tid.es> <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551DE8C1@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <51D453ED.5010406@tid.es> <8755F290097BD941865DC4245B335D2D38FBBD76@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <51DBDE26.9010407@tid.es> Message-ID: <26267_1373368941_51DBF26C_26267_1601_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C1065C1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Dear Fermin,, dear all, I would support the approach from NEC for the following reasons, which should also answer to some of your questions: ? Delay: we are at M27 and we will react at the last minute for a new delivery maybe for M36 but I'm not confident it will be part of our priorities one month before the end of the project. So I prefer to provide all our current results to a community than only a part; ? As far as I know, there is no other proposal to implement OMA NGSI 9 & 10 so we have no risk that the contribution will be rejected. Describing that some parts are in an early draft, as the standardization body manages itself its documents, could push people/companies to become new contributors, and much better to follow what we are doing in Fi-Ware sp attract some 3rd parties also for existing GE instances which are using Fi-Ware NGSI; ? EC is also a main driver and EC wants some results in standardization and in fact, only IoT has concrete outputs with NGSI but also a bit in ETSI-M2M with semantic contribution. So we cannot avoid to submit everything, it will be easier to explain that we will submit a revision based on our results ? And last but not least, we spent lots of time on this topic and this is totally normal but we have to show the results of our work. We have not to emphasize what is not clear, just to explain also what is in our roadmap and that we have on-going work on convenience operations. BR Thierry De : fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Ferm?n Gal?n M?rquez Envoy? : mardi 9 juillet 2013 11:56 ? : Tobias Jacobs Cc : Ernoe Kovacs; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Juanjo Hierro; SERGIO GARCIA GOMEZ Objet : Re: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap Dear Tobias, I agree in that there is a significant effort put in these documents, thus more reasons to use the best strategy towards OMA in order to get all our contributions standardized. And, in our opinion, the best strategy is to start with the mature part (standard operations), then continue (if we are successful) with the not so mature part (convenience operations). I have experience in other standarization bodies (I'm one of the contributors to OVF 2.0 in DMTF) and too ambitious contributions use to fail when working groups/committees think that proposals are not aligned with the current standard or are not mature. In that cases they tell you "thanks, re-do it and try again" and you have to wait months to get another chance. In our case, our best option is the standard operations binding as it is very aligned with the existing OMA standard (it is basically a REST XML binding of the existing OMA document) and it is very mature (we have even an XSD document for all the XML elements involved). Regarding "version chaos", I'm not sure what do you mean (maybe it was something that happens before I joined to the project)... but a proper document management (pe. using a "changelog" table in the documents and Word trac control, using docman instead of SVN to store documents, etc.) could solve it. Regarding document preparation efforts, I think is pretty simple to prepare documents when you have all the material. In particular, preparing the reduced version of the document has taken around one hour (very small effort). Reintroducing existing convenience functions part would take around the same effort. Regarding, justification (to whom?) I think is a matter of explaining our strategy. As I told in my previous email: "we are not proposing to leave convenience operations out of the scope of contributions to OMA. What I mean is that currently is not the right moment and that we need to refine it a bit more before that (fiware-ngsi mailist is probably the best place to do that). Let's focus our initial OMA contribution in the more mature part of our work: the standard operations binding." In addition, it would be great to know how OMA internally works. E.g. they have WPs? how the WPs are governed? what is the process to evolve standards with contributions (e.g. ballots to include ? A briefing on "OMA governance and procedures" will be highly welcome. Best regards, ------ Ferm?n El 08/07/2013 15:10, Tobias Jacobs escribi?: Hi Fermin, the feeling from the NEC people in WP5 is more that we should submit the whole standard document, not only because our work package has put considerable effort into it. I agree that the maturity level is not 100%, but proposing bug fixes later is always possible without big problems, and anyway also the abstract specs need some bug fixes and clarification as we have identified in the project. What is happening now is that the interface is implemented by a number of GEs and that the interoperability is tested, so if there is a good chance that bugs will be found and reported it is now and in the next months. On the other hand, if we for now remove the convenience operations, we - will have another version chaos and inconsistency between the FI-WARE binding and the OMA binding - will have much more effort: now for making a new reduced version, and later for re-introducing the convenience functions if we want them to become part of the standard. - might potentially have problems justifying our efforts in the binding if it turns out that only the straightforward part (one resource per operation, direct translation of data structures into xml schemas) is proposed for standardization. What do you think? Thanks and best regards Tobias From: Ferm?n Gal?n M?rquez [mailto:fermin at tid.es] Sent: Mittwoch, 3. Juli 2013 18:40 To: Lindsay Frost Cc: Ernoe Kovacs; Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena; Miguel Carrillo; Juanjo Hierro; luca.giacomello at telecomitalia.it; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Tobias Jacobs; SERGIO GARCIA GOMEZ; CARLOS RALLI UCENDO Subject: Re: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap Dear Lindsay, "Would you (or a colleague) be willing to modify the two documents (using change tracking) to delete the "not mature" sections ?" I can try to do a first draft on it. Best regards, ------ Ferm?n El 03/07/2013 18:29, Lindsay Frost escribi?: Dear Fermin, I can fully appreciate your viewpoint. For the purpose of demonstrating FIWARE partners' commitment to standardization, your approach is perfectly suitable. Would you (or a colleague) be willing to modify the two documents (using change tracking) to delete the "not mature" sections ? Potentially the sections could be retained but replace the content with <>. Thank you for your feedback how you like to handle it. best regards Lindsay PS Dear Ernoe, please comment later? From: Ferm?n Gal?n M?rquez [mailto:fermin at tid.es] Sent: Mittwoch, 3. Juli 2013 15:02 To: Lindsay Frost Cc: Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena; Miguel Carrillo; Juanjo Hierro; luca.giacomello at telecomitalia.it; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Tobias Jacobs; Ernoe Kovacs; SERGIO GARCIA GOMEZ; CARLOS RALLI UCENDO Subject: Re: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap Dear Lindsay, We (Telef?nica) agree in general terms that that FI-WARE work on NGSI could be a good contribution to OMA. However, before given our formal agreement as you request we would like to define "the contribution" more precisely. I mean, we are not sure if all the content included in the attached documents (NGSI-10 HTTP REST-ful binding draft.docx and NGSI-9 HTTP REST-ful binding draft.docx) should be submitted to OMA as initial contribution given that 1) there are parts that we consider at quite mature and other that aren't so matured, 2) the initial contribution to OMA should include only the mature parts. In particular, we think that the part about the binding for standards operations (including the XSD) is mature for contribution. The part regarding convenience operations is not so mature due to the following reasons: 1. Inconsistencies. E.g. in the NGSI10 binding section 2.1.2 (and subsequence sections) "/contextEntities/{EntityID}" and "/contextEntities/{EntityID}/attributes" have exactly the same behavior. Thus, why two have two different URLs at the end? 2. Some convenience operations are not "so convenient". In particular, the ones related with subscriptions, which use the same request XMLs than the ones used for standard operations (e.g. subscribeContextRequest, updateContextSubscriptionRequest). So, what's the point of using convenience operations here if the standard operations is "equally complex" to use? I would like to clarify that we are not proposing to leave convenience operations out of the scope of contributions to OMA. What I mean is that currently is not the right moment and that we need to refine it a bit more before that (fiware-ngsi mailist is probably the best place to do that). Let's focus our initial OMA contribution in the more mature part of our work: the standard operations binding. In the meanwhile, we will contact our Telefonica's OMA delegates to make them aware of this. Best regards, ------ Ferm?n El 01/07/2013 15:26, Lindsay Frost escribi?: Dear all, the FIWARE Standardisation Report is due this month and we noticed that there is some very good FIWARE input about NGSi which could be submitted into OMA, helping to fulfill our project goals. I have the help of NEC colleagues in OMA ARC group, who would be prepared to submit the contribution (see attached) on behalf of FIWARE ... *** BUT *** ..... BUT I need formal agreement from the co-authors of the draft specification, so Orange, NSN, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia members should please do as follows: (a) inform your colleagues in OMA that this topic is coming soon and ask them if they would like to co-sign it? (if yes, I need their email addresses) (b) confirm to me (so I can reference it if asked) that your company releases any of its copyright on the text in the attached zip files according to OMA rules (c) make sure your colleagues are aware that the material will be under FRAND licensing rules of OMA (inside NEC I already checked that actually there is no known IPR in the files, being based on HTTP) (d) confirm to me that you are working on these steps, so I do not nag more ;-) This nice activity will fail if I do not get replies from ***all*** copyright holders (Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica and Telecom Italia) as soon as possible, i.e. next OMA ARC teleconf is on 09. July. Please do reply positively! Please fwd this email to whoever should see it with a recommendation to support it! If anyone is AGAINST this step, please speak up. best wishes Lindsay Note: SAP is not an OMA member, but (b) and (c) and (d) still apply! ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 _______________________________________________ Fiware-standardization mailing list Fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-standardization ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fermin at tid.es Thu Jul 11 12:27:04 2013 From: fermin at tid.es (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ferm=EDn_Gal=E1n_M=E1rquez?=) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:27:04 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap In-Reply-To: <26267_1373368941_51DBF26C_26267_1601_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C1065C1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551DD78B@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <51D420B3.8060202@tid.es> <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551DE8C1@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <51D453ED.5010406@tid.es> <8755F290097BD941865DC4245B335D2D38FBBD76@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <51DBDE26.9010407@tid.es> <26267_1373368941_51DBF26C_26267_1601_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C1065C1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Message-ID: <51DE8878.1080307@tid.es> Hi, The absence of some convenience operations data structured in the XSD raised by a member of the NGSI mailing list is another fact that support my point that convenience operations are not yet mature enough to be exposed to OMA (see attached email or https://lists.fi-ware.eu/private/fiware-ngsi/2013-July/000487.html). Best regards, ----- Ferm?n El 09/07/2013 13:22, thierry.nagellen at orange.com escribi?: Dear Fermin,, dear all, I would support the approach from NEC for the following reasons, which should also answer to some of your questions: ? Delay: we are at M27 and we will react at the last minute for a new delivery maybe for M36 but I'm not confident it will be part of our priorities one month before the end of the project. So I prefer to provide all our current results to a community than only a part; ? As far as I know, there is no other proposal to implement OMA NGSI 9 & 10 so we have no risk that the contribution will be rejected. Describing that some parts are in an early draft, as the standardization body manages itself its documents, could push people/companies to become new contributors, and much better to follow what we are doing in Fi-Ware sp attract some 3rd parties also for existing GE instances which are using Fi-Ware NGSI; ? EC is also a main driver and EC wants some results in standardization and in fact, only IoT has concrete outputs with NGSI but also a bit in ETSI-M2M with semantic contribution. So we cannot avoid to submit everything, it will be easier to explain that we will submit a revision based on our results ? And last but not least, we spent lots of time on this topic and this is totally normal but we have to show the results of our work. We have not to emphasize what is not clear, just to explain also what is in our roadmap and that we have on-going work on convenience operations. BR Thierry De : fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Ferm?n Gal?n M?rquez Envoy? : mardi 9 juillet 2013 11:56 ? : Tobias Jacobs Cc : Ernoe Kovacs; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Juanjo Hierro; SERGIO GARCIA GOMEZ Objet : Re: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap Dear Tobias, I agree in that there is a significant effort put in these documents, thus more reasons to use the best strategy towards OMA in order to get all our contributions standardized. And, in our opinion, the best strategy is to start with the mature part (standard operations), then continue (if we are successful) with the not so mature part (convenience operations). I have experience in other standarization bodies (I'm one of the contributors to OVF 2.0 in DMTF) and too ambitious contributions use to fail when working groups/committees think that proposals are not aligned with the current standard or are not mature. In that cases they tell you "thanks, re-do it and try again" and you have to wait months to get another chance. In our case, our best option is the standard operations binding as it is very aligned with the existing OMA standard (it is basically a REST XML binding of the existing OMA document) and it is very mature (we have even an XSD document for all the XML elements involved). Regarding "version chaos", I'm not sure what do you mean (maybe it was something that happens before I joined to the project)... but a proper document management (pe. using a "changelog" table in the documents and Word trac control, using docman instead of SVN to store documents, etc.) could solve it. Regarding document preparation efforts, I think is pretty simple to prepare documents when you have all the material. In particular, preparing the reduced version of the document has taken around one hour (very small effort). Reintroducing existing convenience functions part would take around the same effort. Regarding, justification (to whom?) I think is a matter of explaining our strategy. As I told in my previous email: "we are not proposing to leave convenience operations out of the scope of contributions to OMA. What I mean is that currently is not the right moment and that we need to refine it a bit more before that (fiware-ngsi mailist is probably the best place to do that). Let's focus our initial OMA contribution in the more mature part of our work: the standard operations binding." In addition, it would be great to know how OMA internally works. E.g. they have WPs? how the WPs are governed? what is the process to evolve standards with contributions (e.g. ballots to include ? A briefing on "OMA governance and procedures" will be highly welcome. Best regards, ------ Ferm?n El 08/07/2013 15:10, Tobias Jacobs escribi?: Hi Fermin, the feeling from the NEC people in WP5 is more that we should submit the whole standard document, not only because our work package has put considerable effort into it. I agree that the maturity level is not 100%, but proposing bug fixes later is always possible without big problems, and anyway also the abstract specs need some bug fixes and clarification as we have identified in the project. What is happening now is that the interface is implemented by a number of GEs and that the interoperability is tested, so if there is a good chance that bugs will be found and reported it is now and in the next months. On the other hand, if we for now remove the convenience operations, we - will have another version chaos and inconsistency between the FI-WARE binding and the OMA binding - will have much more effort: now for making a new reduced version, and later for re-introducing the convenience functions if we want them to become part of the standard. - might potentially have problems justifying our efforts in the binding if it turns out that only the straightforward part (one resource per operation, direct translation of data structures into xml schemas) is proposed for standardization. What do you think? Thanks and best regards Tobias From: Ferm?n Gal?n M?rquez [mailto:fermin at tid.es] Sent: Mittwoch, 3. Juli 2013 18:40 To: Lindsay Frost Cc: Ernoe Kovacs; Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena; Miguel Carrillo; Juanjo Hierro; luca.giacomello at telecomitalia.it; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Tobias Jacobs; SERGIO GARCIA GOMEZ; CARLOS RALLI UCENDO Subject: Re: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap Dear Lindsay, "Would you (or a colleague) be willing to modify the two documents (using change tracking) to delete the "not mature" sections ?" I can try to do a first draft on it. Best regards, ------ Ferm?n El 03/07/2013 18:29, Lindsay Frost escribi?: Dear Fermin, I can fully appreciate your viewpoint. For the purpose of demonstrating FIWARE partners' commitment to standardization, your approach is perfectly suitable. Would you (or a colleague) be willing to modify the two documents (using change tracking) to delete the "not mature" sections ? Potentially the sections could be retained but replace the content with <>. Thank you for your feedback how you like to handle it. best regards Lindsay PS Dear Ernoe, please comment later? From: Ferm?n Gal?n M?rquez [mailto:fermin at tid.es] Sent: Mittwoch, 3. Juli 2013 15:02 To: Lindsay Frost Cc: Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena; Miguel Carrillo; Juanjo Hierro; luca.giacomello at telecomitalia.it; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Tobias Jacobs; Ernoe Kovacs; SERGIO GARCIA GOMEZ; CARLOS RALLI UCENDO Subject: Re: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap Dear Lindsay, We (Telef?nica) agree in general terms that that FI-WARE work on NGSI could be a good contribution to OMA. However, before given our formal agreement as you request we would like to define "the contribution" more precisely. I mean, we are not sure if all the content included in the attached documents (NGSI-10 HTTP REST-ful binding draft.docx and NGSI-9 HTTP REST-ful binding draft.docx) should be submitted to OMA as initial contribution given that 1) there are parts that we consider at quite mature and other that aren't so matured, 2) the initial contribution to OMA should include only the mature parts. In particular, we think that the part about the binding for standards operations (including the XSD) is mature for contribution. The part regarding convenience operations is not so mature due to the following reasons: 1. Inconsistencies. E.g. in the NGSI10 binding section 2.1.2 (and subsequence sections) "/contextEntities/{EntityID}" and "/contextEntities/{EntityID}/attributes" have exactly the same behavior. Thus, why two have two different URLs at the end? 2. Some convenience operations are not "so convenient". In particular, the ones related with subscriptions, which use the same request XMLs than the ones used for standard operations (e.g. subscribeContextRequest, updateContextSubscriptionRequest). So, what's the point of using convenience operations here if the standard operations is "equally complex" to use? I would like to clarify that we are not proposing to leave convenience operations out of the scope of contributions to OMA. What I mean is that currently is not the right moment and that we need to refine it a bit more before that (fiware-ngsi mailist is probably the best place to do that). Let's focus our initial OMA contribution in the more mature part of our work: the standard operations binding. In the meanwhile, we will contact our Telefonica's OMA delegates to make them aware of this. Best regards, ------ Ferm?n El 01/07/2013 15:26, Lindsay Frost escribi?: Dear all, the FIWARE Standardisation Report is due this month and we noticed that there is some very good FIWARE input about NGSi which could be submitted into OMA, helping to fulfill our project goals. I have the help of NEC colleagues in OMA ARC group, who would be prepared to submit the contribution (see attached) on behalf of FIWARE ... *** BUT *** ..... BUT I need formal agreement from the co-authors of the draft specification, so Orange, NSN, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia members should please do as follows: (a) inform your colleagues in OMA that this topic is coming soon and ask them if they would like to co-sign it? (if yes, I need their email addresses) (b) confirm to me (so I can reference it if asked) that your company releases any of its copyright on the text in the attached zip files according to OMA rules (c) make sure your colleagues are aware that the material will be under FRAND licensing rules of OMA (inside NEC I already checked that actually there is no known IPR in the files, being based on HTTP) (d) confirm to me that you are working on these steps, so I do not nag more ;-) This nice activity will fail if I do not get replies from ***all*** copyright holders (Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica and Telecom Italia) as soon as possible, i.e. next OMA ARC teleconf is on 09. July. Please do reply positively! Please fwd this email to whoever should see it with a recommendation to support it! If anyone is AGAINST this step, please speak up. best wishes Lindsay Note: SAP is not an OMA member, but (b) and (c) and (d) still apply! ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 _______________________________________________ Fiware-standardization mailing list Fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-standardization ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Kasten, Oliver" Subject: [Fiware-ngsi] appendContextElementResponse missing in Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:39:04 +0000 Size: 13931 URL: From Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu Sun Jul 14 20:45:32 2013 From: Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu (Lindsay Frost) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 18:45:32 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap In-Reply-To: <51DE8878.1080307@tid.es> References: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551DD78B@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <51D420B3.8060202@tid.es> <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551DE8C1@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <51D453ED.5010406@tid.es> <8755F290097BD941865DC4245B335D2D38FBBD76@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <51DBDE26.9010407@tid.es> <26267_1373368941_51DBF26C_26267_1601_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C1065C1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <51DE8878.1080307@tid.es> Message-ID: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551F64CB@DAPHNIS.office.hd> Dear Fermin Gal?n M?rquez, I am not able to judge which parts of the documents are "mature" and what efforts might be added in future by FIWARE members towards OMA standardization, _but_ it is completely according to common practice in OMA and in most SDOs to provide contributions which are "not perfect". In my personal opinion, it would be better to show as much as possible now, and impress the EC with the FIWARE initiative and hard work during the next months (and Review), even at the risk of delaying acceptance of the work into OMA. In the final analysis the work will become a defacto standard anyway, after FIWARE work is more widespread. I look forward to your feedback and hope that you will feel able to allow the full documents to be provided to OMA as "strawman" drafts. best wishes Lindsay From: fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Ferm?n Gal?n M?rquez Sent: Donnerstag, 11. Juli 2013 12:27 To: thierry.nagellen at orange.com Cc: Juanjo Hierro; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Tobias Jacobs; Ernoe Kovacs; SERGIO GARCIA GOMEZ Subject: Re: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap Hi, The absence of some convenience operations data structured in the XSD raised by a member of the NGSI mailing list is another fact that support my point that convenience operations are not yet mature enough to be exposed to OMA (see attached email or https://lists.fi-ware.eu/private/fiware-ngsi/2013-July/000487.html). Best regards, ----- Ferm?n El 09/07/2013 13:22, thierry.nagellen at orange.com escribi?: Dear Fermin,, dear all, I would support the approach from NEC for the following reasons, which should also answer to some of your questions: * Delay: we are at M27 and we will react at the last minute for a new delivery maybe for M36 but I'm not confident it will be part of our priorities one month before the end of the project. So I prefer to provide all our current results to a community than only a part; * As far as I know, there is no other proposal to implement OMA NGSI 9 & 10 so we have no risk that the contribution will be rejected. Describing that some parts are in an early draft, as the standardization body manages itself its documents, could push people/companies to become new contributors, and much better to follow what we are doing in Fi-Ware sp attract some 3rd parties also for existing GE instances which are using Fi-Ware NGSI; * EC is also a main driver and EC wants some results in standardization and in fact, only IoT has concrete outputs with NGSI but also a bit in ETSI-M2M with semantic contribution. So we cannot avoid to submit everything, it will be easier to explain that we will submit a revision based on our results * And last but not least, we spent lots of time on this topic and this is totally normal but we have to show the results of our work. We have not to emphasize what is not clear, just to explain also what is in our roadmap and that we have on-going work on convenience operations. BR Thierry De : fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Ferm?n Gal?n M?rquez Envoy? : mardi 9 juillet 2013 11:56 ? : Tobias Jacobs Cc : Ernoe Kovacs; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Juanjo Hierro; SERGIO GARCIA GOMEZ Objet : Re: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap Dear Tobias, I agree in that there is a significant effort put in these documents, thus more reasons to use the best strategy towards OMA in order to get all our contributions standardized. And, in our opinion, the best strategy is to start with the mature part (standard operations), then continue (if we are successful) with the not so mature part (convenience operations). I have experience in other standarization bodies (I'm one of the contributors to OVF 2.0 in DMTF) and too ambitious contributions use to fail when working groups/committees think that proposals are not aligned with the current standard or are not mature. In that cases they tell you "thanks, re-do it and try again" and you have to wait months to get another chance. In our case, our best option is the standard operations binding as it is very aligned with the existing OMA standard (it is basically a REST XML binding of the existing OMA document) and it is very mature (we have even an XSD document for all the XML elements involved). Regarding "version chaos", I'm not sure what do you mean (maybe it was something that happens before I joined to the project)... but a proper document management (pe. using a "changelog" table in the documents and Word trac control, using docman instead of SVN to store documents, etc.) could solve it. Regarding document preparation efforts, I think is pretty simple to prepare documents when you have all the material. In particular, preparing the reduced version of the document has taken around one hour (very small effort). Reintroducing existing convenience functions part would take around the same effort. Regarding, justification (to whom?) I think is a matter of explaining our strategy. As I told in my previous email: "we are not proposing to leave convenience operations out of the scope of contributions to OMA. What I mean is that currently is not the right moment and that we need to refine it a bit more before that (fiware-ngsi mailist is probably the best place to do that). Let's focus our initial OMA contribution in the more mature part of our work: the standard operations binding." In addition, it would be great to know how OMA internally works. E.g. they have WPs? how the WPs are governed? what is the process to evolve standards with contributions (e.g. ballots to include ? A briefing on "OMA governance and procedures" will be highly welcome. Best regards, ------ Ferm?n El 08/07/2013 15:10, Tobias Jacobs escribi?: Hi Fermin, the feeling from the NEC people in WP5 is more that we should submit the whole standard document, not only because our work package has put considerable effort into it. I agree that the maturity level is not 100%, but proposing bug fixes later is always possible without big problems, and anyway also the abstract specs need some bug fixes and clarification as we have identified in the project. What is happening now is that the interface is implemented by a number of GEs and that the interoperability is tested, so if there is a good chance that bugs will be found and reported it is now and in the next months. On the other hand, if we for now remove the convenience operations, we - will have another version chaos and inconsistency between the FI-WARE binding and the OMA binding - will have much more effort: now for making a new reduced version, and later for re-introducing the convenience functions if we want them to become part of the standard. - might potentially have problems justifying our efforts in the binding if it turns out that only the straightforward part (one resource per operation, direct translation of data structures into xml schemas) is proposed for standardization. What do you think? Thanks and best regards Tobias From: Ferm?n Gal?n M?rquez [mailto:fermin at tid.es] Sent: Mittwoch, 3. Juli 2013 18:40 To: Lindsay Frost Cc: Ernoe Kovacs; Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena; Miguel Carrillo; Juanjo Hierro; luca.giacomello at telecomitalia.it; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Tobias Jacobs; SERGIO GARCIA GOMEZ; CARLOS RALLI UCENDO Subject: Re: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap Dear Lindsay, "Would you (or a colleague) be willing to modify the two documents (using change tracking) to delete the "not mature" sections ?" I can try to do a first draft on it. Best regards, ------ Ferm?n El 03/07/2013 18:29, Lindsay Frost escribi?: Dear Fermin, I can fully appreciate your viewpoint. For the purpose of demonstrating FIWARE partners' commitment to standardization, your approach is perfectly suitable. Would you (or a colleague) be willing to modify the two documents (using change tracking) to delete the "not mature" sections ? Potentially the sections could be retained but replace the content with <>. Thank you for your feedback how you like to handle it. best regards Lindsay PS Dear Ernoe, please comment later? From: Ferm?n Gal?n M?rquez [mailto:fermin at tid.es] Sent: Mittwoch, 3. Juli 2013 15:02 To: Lindsay Frost Cc: Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena; Miguel Carrillo; Juanjo Hierro; luca.giacomello at telecomitalia.it; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Tobias Jacobs; Ernoe Kovacs; SERGIO GARCIA GOMEZ; CARLOS RALLI UCENDO Subject: Re: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap Dear Lindsay, We (Telef?nica) agree in general terms that that FI-WARE work on NGSI could be a good contribution to OMA. However, before given our formal agreement as you request we would like to define "the contribution" more precisely. I mean, we are not sure if all the content included in the attached documents (NGSI-10 HTTP REST-ful binding draft.docx and NGSI-9 HTTP REST-ful binding draft.docx) should be submitted to OMA as initial contribution given that 1) there are parts that we consider at quite mature and other that aren't so matured, 2) the initial contribution to OMA should include only the mature parts. In particular, we think that the part about the binding for standards operations (including the XSD) is mature for contribution. The part regarding convenience operations is not so mature due to the following reasons: 1. Inconsistencies. E.g. in the NGSI10 binding section 2.1.2 (and subsequence sections) "/contextEntities/{EntityID}" and "/contextEntities/{EntityID}/attributes" have exactly the same behavior. Thus, why two have two different URLs at the end? 2. Some convenience operations are not "so convenient". In particular, the ones related with subscriptions, which use the same request XMLs than the ones used for standard operations (e.g. subscribeContextRequest, updateContextSubscriptionRequest). So, what's the point of using convenience operations here if the standard operations is "equally complex" to use? I would like to clarify that we are not proposing to leave convenience operations out of the scope of contributions to OMA. What I mean is that currently is not the right moment and that we need to refine it a bit more before that (fiware-ngsi mailist is probably the best place to do that). Let's focus our initial OMA contribution in the more mature part of our work: the standard operations binding. In the meanwhile, we will contact our Telefonica's OMA delegates to make them aware of this. Best regards, ------ Ferm?n El 01/07/2013 15:26, Lindsay Frost escribi?: Dear all, the FIWARE Standardisation Report is due this month and we noticed that there is some very good FIWARE input about NGSi which could be submitted into OMA, helping to fulfill our project goals. I have the help of NEC colleagues in OMA ARC group, who would be prepared to submit the contribution (see attached) on behalf of FIWARE ... *** BUT *** ..... BUT I need formal agreement from the co-authors of the draft specification, so Orange, NSN, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia members should please do as follows: (a) inform your colleagues in OMA that this topic is coming soon and ask them if they would like to co-sign it? (if yes, I need their email addresses) (b) confirm to me (so I can reference it if asked) that your company releases any of its copyright on the text in the attached zip files according to OMA rules (c) make sure your colleagues are aware that the material will be under FRAND licensing rules of OMA (inside NEC I already checked that actually there is no known IPR in the files, being based on HTTP) (d) confirm to me that you are working on these steps, so I do not nag more ;-) This nice activity will fail if I do not get replies from ***all*** copyright holders (Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica and Telecom Italia) as soon as possible, i.e. next OMA ARC teleconf is on 09. July. Please do reply positively! Please fwd this email to whoever should see it with a recommendation to support it! If anyone is AGAINST this step, please speak up. best wishes Lindsay Note: SAP is not an OMA member, but (b) and (c) and (d) still apply! ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 _______________________________________________ Fiware-standardization mailing list Fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-standardization ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu Mon Jul 15 00:22:39 2013 From: Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu (Lindsay Frost) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 22:22:39 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-standardization] Standardization_Plan_D11 4c - your status and my handover Message-ID: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551F6588@DAPHNIS.office.hd> Dear all, (1) My colleague Tobias Jacobs Tobias.Jacobs at neclab.eu has kindly agreed to complete in July the final steps for publishing the deliverable on Standardization Activities WP12-D11.4c.pdf. Please include him and his manager Ernoe Kovacs Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu on all replies. (2) I attach for your review the PDF of the D11.4c report (draft) and also for convenience a word document Delta-4c-4b.docx which shows the "text changes" between the current draft and the previous version D11.4b from one year ago. My personal impression: "Internet of Things" will get hammered in the EC review. "Applications Services" and "Data Context Management" may also be in some trouble. "Cloud Hosting" and "Interface to Networks and Devices" will be praised. (3) Reviewing the changes shown in Delta-4c-4b.docx. You will see the following improvements were made: Cloud Hosting: updated the architecture figure, inserted OGF as an important SDO, reported on ISO JTC1/SC38[6], updated delegate names for OVF DMTF, inserted news about HGI activities, added ETSI CSC as an important SDO and added delegates names, added or updated about 20 timestamped contributions Data Context Management: updated the architecture figure, inserted reference to plan to support OMA NGSi contribution, inserted 4 SDO groups as important {OMA LIF, ISO/IEC SC29 WG11 (MPEG), SO/IEC SC29 WG1 (JPEG), W3C}, updated delegates names, added 2 timestamped contributions Internet of Things, editorial changes about IETF NETCONF, ZigBee Alliance, SSN-XG, added 0 timestamped contributions Applications Services: : updated the architecture figure, mainly editorial changes to table 1, no changes to list of delegates, only status updates ("done") in table 3 //LF: maybe it would help to put in an introduction text saying that the planned work is being carried out on the desired timeframe?// Security: : updated the architecture figure, included NIST Security Monitoring GE as an important SDO, noted work in NIST and ISO/IEC 18013, updated their delegates list, added 8 timestamped contributions Interface to Networks and Devices: no new architecture?, about 8 activity areas mentioned in ONF, added IETF ALTO WG and HGI delegates, added 12 timestamped contributions (4) Further updates: If you want to add input, and make the EC review more favourable, please update your areas: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Standardization_Activities and send an email to Tobias to let him know. good luck, Lindsay PS: again my thanks go to the people who, after my previous email, updated the wiki and also sent me informative emails: Miguel Carrillo mcp at tid.es, Lorant Farkas lorant.farkas at nsn.com, Peter Amon p.amon at siemens.com, Sergio Garcia Gomez sergg at tid.es, Philipp Slusallek Philipp.Slusallek at dfki.de, Ferm?n Gal?n M?rquez fermin at tid.es, Thierry Nagellan thierry.nagellen at orange.com, Giovanni Toffetti-Carughi GIOVANNI at il.ibm.com, Markus Heller markus.heller at sap.com, Pierangelo Garino pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it, Franz-Stefan Preiss FRP at zurich.ibm.com, ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 From: fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Lindsay Frost Sent: Donnerstag, 4. Juli 2013 23:10 To: Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu; Ernoe Kovacs; Carmen Perea Escribano; sergg at tid.es; FRP at zurich.ibm.com; lorant.farkas at nsn.com; p.amon at siemens.com; alexandre.boeglin at inria.fr Subject: Re: [Fiware-standardization] Standardization_Plan_D11 4c - progress so far Dear all, I would like to personally thank the people who have started responding to my email from Monday! john.m.kennedy at intel.com has made some updates to Cloud Hosting thierry.nagellen at orange.com has identified 4 or 5 items to put next week into Internet of Things fermin at tid.es has promised support and some editing of the OMA NGSi contribution torsten.leidig at sap.com has started checking inside SAP about copyright for the OMA contribution, and has already updated parts of WP3 in the wiki sergg at tid.es has started collecting material with his WP6 team p.amon at siemens.com has already started pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com for Security part is coordinating more inputs, on top of the contributions already made by FRP at zurich.ibm.com and alexandre.boeglin at inria.fr pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it has started collecting material for I2ND This is very encouraging start and I hope everyone who has not contacted me is nevertheless already started :-) best wishes Lindsay From: fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Lindsay Frost Sent: Montag, 1. Juli 2013 16:39 To: Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Ernoe Kovacs; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; mcp at tid.es; nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu; Miguel Carrillo; Nuria De-Lama Sanchez; Carmen Perea Escribano; lorant.farkas at nsn.com Cc: Ernoe Kovacs Subject: [Fiware-standardization] Standardization_Plan_D11 4c - your input needed by next week Importance: High Dear all, please forward this if my mail does not reach all concerned. Please note, I will probably "deliver" whatever is made available to me on July 15th, and then leave Germany for 4 weeks holiday without email contact, in the Australian outback. So please reply soon. The time has come to panic again and write the FI-WARE D11.4c deliverable, due in July. Attached is a (badly formatted) doc version of the previous deliverable, which I only use to conveniently ask your opinion on a few "change tracked" remarks in yellow highlighting. I ask everyone receiving this to confirm if you agree with this basic approach to updating ? 1) confirm who is "contact person" per topic 2) ask the contact person to supply (new) names of the "sdo delegates" 3) ask the contact person to re-write the informative texts in each chapter (see attached file for getting the idea). Note that the EC complained when they read it about lack of details/deliverables (e.g BigData, HGI, OneM2M, OMA NGSI, others). 4) write to old and new sdo delegates asking for immediate update of the tables of activities for each SDO (and chase them!) I ask the contact person for each topic to re-write their informative texts in the wiki http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Standardization_Activities within the next week (otherwise I cannot guarantee the material will be included in Deliverable). Note that I already contacted everyone in some emails, asking for updates (see attached, (15.03.2013 " Request your input for D11.4 re Standardization activity in your Work Package") but only FRP at zurich.ibm.com and alexandre.boeglin at inria.fr replied (thanks guys!) Thank you for your confirmation (or improvement) of this approach. Best wishes! Lindsay ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Delta-4c-4b.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 1112935 bytes Desc: Delta-4c-4b.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WP12-D11.4c.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1189612 bytes Desc: WP12-D11.4c.pdf URL: From fermin at tid.es Tue Jul 16 10:50:33 2013 From: fermin at tid.es (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ferm=EDn_Gal=E1n_M=E1rquez?=) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 10:50:33 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap In-Reply-To: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551F64CB@DAPHNIS.office.hd> References: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551DD78B@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <51D420B3.8060202@tid.es> <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551DE8C1@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <51D453ED.5010406@tid.es> <8755F290097BD941865DC4245B335D2D38FBBD76@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <51DBDE26.9010407@tid.es> <26267_1373368941_51DBF26C_26267_1601_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C1065C1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <51DE8878.1080307@tid.es> <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551F64CB@DAPHNIS.office.hd> Message-ID: <51E50959.2040800@tid.es> Dear Lindsay, My experience with other SDOs (DMTF in particular) is contrary to the practice of submit "as mush as possible". But I have to admit that maybe I'm wrong because I don't know OMA or how it works. Thus, before providing feedback on this I need to fully understand how OMA works (as I mention in my previous email: "it would be great to know how OMA internally works. E.g. they have WPs? how the WPs are governed? what is the process to evolve standards with contributions (e.g. ballots to include ? A briefing on "OMA governance and procedures" will be highly welcome"). You mention "most SDOs". Could you please clarify which particular SDOs are you referring to, please? In addition, I think that the priority is not to "impress the EC" but to get our contributions standardized by OMA. I'm not saying that impressing the EC is not important, but if I have to chose between impressing EC or getting our contributions standardized by OMA, I would chose the second one. But maybe other have a different opinion on this. Finally, it would be great to know what the other partners involved in this activity (TI? SAP? NSN?) think on the matter. Best regards, ------ Ferm?n El 14/07/2013 20:45, Lindsay Frost escribi?: Dear Fermin Gal?n M?rquez, I am not able to judge which parts of the documents are "mature" and what efforts might be added in future by FIWARE members towards OMA standardization, _but_ it is completely according to common practice in OMA and in most SDOs to provide contributions which are "not perfect". In my personal opinion, it would be better to show as much as possible now, and impress the EC with the FIWARE initiative and hard work during the next months (and Review), even at the risk of delaying acceptance of the work into OMA. In the final analysis the work will become a defacto standard anyway, after FIWARE work is more widespread. I look forward to your feedback and hope that you will feel able to allow the full documents to be provided to OMA as "strawman" drafts. best wishes Lindsay From: fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Ferm?n Gal?n M?rquez Sent: Donnerstag, 11. Juli 2013 12:27 To: thierry.nagellen at orange.com Cc: Juanjo Hierro; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Tobias Jacobs; Ernoe Kovacs; SERGIO GARCIA GOMEZ Subject: Re: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap Hi, The absence of some convenience operations data structured in the XSD raised by a member of the NGSI mailing list is another fact that support my point that convenience operations are not yet mature enough to be exposed to OMA (see attached email or https://lists.fi-ware.eu/private/fiware-ngsi/2013-July/000487.html). Best regards, ----- Ferm?n El 09/07/2013 13:22, thierry.nagellen at orange.com escribi?: Dear Fermin,, dear all, I would support the approach from NEC for the following reasons, which should also answer to some of your questions: * Delay: we are at M27 and we will react at the last minute for a new delivery maybe for M36 but I'm not confident it will be part of our priorities one month before the end of the project. So I prefer to provide all our current results to a community than only a part; * As far as I know, there is no other proposal to implement OMA NGSI 9 & 10 so we have no risk that the contribution will be rejected. Describing that some parts are in an early draft, as the standardization body manages itself its documents, could push people/companies to become new contributors, and much better to follow what we are doing in Fi-Ware sp attract some 3rd parties also for existing GE instances which are using Fi-Ware NGSI; * EC is also a main driver and EC wants some results in standardization and in fact, only IoT has concrete outputs with NGSI but also a bit in ETSI-M2M with semantic contribution. So we cannot avoid to submit everything, it will be easier to explain that we will submit a revision based on our results * And last but not least, we spent lots of time on this topic and this is totally normal but we have to show the results of our work. We have not to emphasize what is not clear, just to explain also what is in our roadmap and that we have on-going work on convenience operations. BR Thierry De : fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Ferm?n Gal?n M?rquez Envoy? : mardi 9 juillet 2013 11:56 ? : Tobias Jacobs Cc : Ernoe Kovacs; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Juanjo Hierro; SERGIO GARCIA GOMEZ Objet : Re: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap Dear Tobias, I agree in that there is a significant effort put in these documents, thus more reasons to use the best strategy towards OMA in order to get all our contributions standardized. And, in our opinion, the best strategy is to start with the mature part (standard operations), then continue (if we are successful) with the not so mature part (convenience operations). I have experience in other standarization bodies (I'm one of the contributors to OVF 2.0 in DMTF) and too ambitious contributions use to fail when working groups/committees think that proposals are not aligned with the current standard or are not mature. In that cases they tell you "thanks, re-do it and try again" and you have to wait months to get another chance. In our case, our best option is the standard operations binding as it is very aligned with the existing OMA standard (it is basically a REST XML binding of the existing OMA document) and it is very mature (we have even an XSD document for all the XML elements involved). Regarding "version chaos", I'm not sure what do you mean (maybe it was something that happens before I joined to the project)... but a proper document management (pe. using a "changelog" table in the documents and Word trac control, using docman instead of SVN to store documents, etc.) could solve it. Regarding document preparation efforts, I think is pretty simple to prepare documents when you have all the material. In particular, preparing the reduced version of the document has taken around one hour (very small effort). Reintroducing existing convenience functions part would take around the same effort. Regarding, justification (to whom?) I think is a matter of explaining our strategy. As I told in my previous email: "we are not proposing to leave convenience operations out of the scope of contributions to OMA. What I mean is that currently is not the right moment and that we need to refine it a bit more before that (fiware-ngsi mailist is probably the best place to do that). Let's focus our initial OMA contribution in the more mature part of our work: the standard operations binding." In addition, it would be great to know how OMA internally works. E.g. they have WPs? how the WPs are governed? what is the process to evolve standards with contributions (e.g. ballots to include ? A briefing on "OMA governance and procedures" will be highly welcome. Best regards, ------ Ferm?n El 08/07/2013 15:10, Tobias Jacobs escribi?: Hi Fermin, the feeling from the NEC people in WP5 is more that we should submit the whole standard document, not only because our work package has put considerable effort into it. I agree that the maturity level is not 100%, but proposing bug fixes later is always possible without big problems, and anyway also the abstract specs need some bug fixes and clarification as we have identified in the project. What is happening now is that the interface is implemented by a number of GEs and that the interoperability is tested, so if there is a good chance that bugs will be found and reported it is now and in the next months. On the other hand, if we for now remove the convenience operations, we - will have another version chaos and inconsistency between the FI-WARE binding and the OMA binding - will have much more effort: now for making a new reduced version, and later for re-introducing the convenience functions if we want them to become part of the standard. - might potentially have problems justifying our efforts in the binding if it turns out that only the straightforward part (one resource per operation, direct translation of data structures into xml schemas) is proposed for standardization. What do you think? Thanks and best regards Tobias From: Ferm?n Gal?n M?rquez [mailto:fermin at tid.es] Sent: Mittwoch, 3. Juli 2013 18:40 To: Lindsay Frost Cc: Ernoe Kovacs; Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena; Miguel Carrillo; Juanjo Hierro; luca.giacomello at telecomitalia.it; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Tobias Jacobs; SERGIO GARCIA GOMEZ; CARLOS RALLI UCENDO Subject: Re: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap Dear Lindsay, "Would you (or a colleague) be willing to modify the two documents (using change tracking) to delete the "not mature" sections ?" I can try to do a first draft on it. Best regards, ------ Ferm?n El 03/07/2013 18:29, Lindsay Frost escribi?: Dear Fermin, I can fully appreciate your viewpoint. For the purpose of demonstrating FIWARE partners' commitment to standardization, your approach is perfectly suitable. Would you (or a colleague) be willing to modify the two documents (using change tracking) to delete the "not mature" sections ? Potentially the sections could be retained but replace the content with <>. Thank you for your feedback how you like to handle it. best regards Lindsay PS Dear Ernoe, please comment later? From: Ferm?n Gal?n M?rquez [mailto:fermin at tid.es] Sent: Mittwoch, 3. Juli 2013 15:02 To: Lindsay Frost Cc: Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena; Miguel Carrillo; Juanjo Hierro; luca.giacomello at telecomitalia.it; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Tobias Jacobs; Ernoe Kovacs; SERGIO GARCIA GOMEZ; CARLOS RALLI UCENDO Subject: Re: [Fiware-standardization] FIWARE Input to OMA about NGSI - copyright permission needed from Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia asap Dear Lindsay, We (Telef?nica) agree in general terms that that FI-WARE work on NGSI could be a good contribution to OMA. However, before given our formal agreement as you request we would like to define "the contribution" more precisely. I mean, we are not sure if all the content included in the attached documents (NGSI-10 HTTP REST-ful binding draft.docx and NGSI-9 HTTP REST-ful binding draft.docx) should be submitted to OMA as initial contribution given that 1) there are parts that we consider at quite mature and other that aren't so matured, 2) the initial contribution to OMA should include only the mature parts. In particular, we think that the part about the binding for standards operations (including the XSD) is mature for contribution. The part regarding convenience operations is not so mature due to the following reasons: 1. Inconsistencies. E.g. in the NGSI10 binding section 2.1.2 (and subsequence sections) "/contextEntities/{EntityID}" and "/contextEntities/{EntityID}/attributes" have exactly the same behavior. Thus, why two have two different URLs at the end? 2. Some convenience operations are not "so convenient". In particular, the ones related with subscriptions, which use the same request XMLs than the ones used for standard operations (e.g. subscribeContextRequest, updateContextSubscriptionRequest). So, what's the point of using convenience operations here if the standard operations is "equally complex" to use? I would like to clarify that we are not proposing to leave convenience operations out of the scope of contributions to OMA. What I mean is that currently is not the right moment and that we need to refine it a bit more before that (fiware-ngsi mailist is probably the best place to do that). Let's focus our initial OMA contribution in the more mature part of our work: the standard operations binding. In the meanwhile, we will contact our Telefonica's OMA delegates to make them aware of this. Best regards, ------ Ferm?n El 01/07/2013 15:26, Lindsay Frost escribi?: Dear all, the FIWARE Standardisation Report is due this month and we noticed that there is some very good FIWARE input about NGSi which could be submitted into OMA, helping to fulfill our project goals. I have the help of NEC colleagues in OMA ARC group, who would be prepared to submit the contribution (see attached) on behalf of FIWARE ... *** BUT *** ..... BUT I need formal agreement from the co-authors of the draft specification, so Orange, NSN, Telefonica, SAP, Telecom Italia members should please do as follows: (a) inform your colleagues in OMA that this topic is coming soon and ask them if they would like to co-sign it? (if yes, I need their email addresses) (b) confirm to me (so I can reference it if asked) that your company releases any of its copyright on the text in the attached zip files according to OMA rules (c) make sure your colleagues are aware that the material will be under FRAND licensing rules of OMA (inside NEC I already checked that actually there is no known IPR in the files, being based on HTTP) (d) confirm to me that you are working on these steps, so I do not nag more ;-) This nice activity will fail if I do not get replies from ***all*** copyright holders (Orange, NSN, SAP, Telefonica and Telecom Italia) as soon as possible, i.e. next OMA ARC teleconf is on 09. July. Please do reply positively! Please fwd this email to whoever should see it with a recommendation to support it! If anyone is AGAINST this step, please speak up. best wishes Lindsay Note: SAP is not an OMA member, but (b) and (c) and (d) still apply! ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 _______________________________________________ Fiware-standardization mailing list Fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-standardization ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcp at tid.es Mon Jul 22 08:57:49 2013 From: mcp at tid.es (Miguel Carrillo) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 08:57:49 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-standardization] Standardization_Plan_D11 4c - your status and my handover In-Reply-To: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551F6588@DAPHNIS.office.hd> References: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA932551F6588@DAPHNIS.office.hd> Message-ID: <51ECD7ED.3060706@tid.es> Dear all, This got moderated in the WPL list. I just approved it but as it comes with an old date, it may end up hiding in the list of old messages and go unnoticed. Just in case I resend it. A big thank you to Lindsay for so much work and patience (and to Tobias for taking over!). Best regards, Miguel El 15/07/2013 0:22, Lindsay Frost escribi?: Dear all, (1) My colleague Tobias Jacobs Tobias.Jacobs at neclab.eu has kindly agreed to complete in July the final steps for publishing the deliverable on Standardization Activities WP12-D11.4c.pdf. Please include him and his manager Ernoe Kovacs Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu on all replies. (2) I attach for your review the PDF of the D11.4c report (draft) and also for convenience a word document Delta-4c-4b.docx which shows the "text changes" between the current draft and the previous version D11.4b from one year ago. My personal impression: "Internet of Things" will get hammered in the EC review. "Applications Services" and "Data Context Management" may also be in some trouble. "Cloud Hosting" and "Interface to Networks and Devices" will be praised. (3) Reviewing the changes shown in Delta-4c-4b.docx. You will see the following improvements were made: Cloud Hosting: updated the architecture figure, inserted OGF as an important SDO, reported on ISO JTC1/SC38[6], updated delegate names for OVF DMTF, inserted news about HGI activities, added ETSI CSC as an important SDO and added delegates names, added or updated about 20 timestamped contributions Data Context Management: updated the architecture figure, inserted reference to plan to support OMA NGSi contribution, inserted 4 SDO groups as important {OMA LIF, ISO/IEC SC29 WG11 (MPEG), SO/IEC SC29 WG1 (JPEG), W3C}, updated delegates names, added 2 timestamped contributions Internet of Things, editorial changes about IETF NETCONF, ZigBee Alliance, SSN-XG, added 0 timestamped contributions Applications Services: : updated the architecture figure, mainly editorial changes to table 1, no changes to list of delegates, only status updates ("done") in table 3 //LF: maybe it would help to put in an introduction text saying that the planned work is being carried out on the desired timeframe?// Security: : updated the architecture figure, included NIST Security Monitoring GE as an important SDO, noted work in NIST and ISO/IEC 18013, updated their delegates list, added 8 timestamped contributions Interface to Networks and Devices: no new architecture?, about 8 activity areas mentioned in ONF, added IETF ALTO WG and HGI delegates, added 12 timestamped contributions (4) Further updates: If you want to add input, and make the EC review more favourable, please update your areas: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Standardization_Activities and send an email to Tobias to let him know. good luck, Lindsay PS: again my thanks go to the people who, after my previous email, updated the wiki and also sent me informative emails: Miguel Carrillo mcp at tid.es, Lorant Farkas lorant.farkas at nsn.com, Peter Amon p.amon at siemens.com, Sergio Garcia Gomez sergg at tid.es, Philipp Slusallek Philipp.Slusallek at dfki.de, Ferm?n Gal?n M?rquez fermin at tid.es, Thierry Nagellan thierry.nagellen at orange.com, Giovanni Toffetti-Carughi GIOVANNI at il.ibm.com, Markus Heller markus.heller at sap.com, Pierangelo Garino pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it, Franz-Stefan Preiss FRP at zurich.ibm.com, ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 From: fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Lindsay Frost Sent: Donnerstag, 4. Juli 2013 23:10 To: Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu; Ernoe Kovacs; Carmen Perea Escribano; sergg at tid.es; FRP at zurich.ibm.com; lorant.farkas at nsn.com; p.amon at siemens.com; alexandre.boeglin at inria.fr Subject: Re: [Fiware-standardization] Standardization_Plan_D11 4c - progress so far Dear all, I would like to personally thank the people who have started responding to my email from Monday! john.m.kennedy at intel.com has made some updates to Cloud Hosting thierry.nagellen at orange.com has identified 4 or 5 items to put next week into Internet of Things fermin at tid.es has promised support and some editing of the OMA NGSi contribution torsten.leidig at sap.com has started checking inside SAP about copyright for the OMA contribution, and has already updated parts of WP3 in the wiki sergg at tid.es has started collecting material with his WP6 team p.amon at siemens.com has already started pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com for Security part is coordinating more inputs, on top of the contributions already made by FRP at zurich.ibm.com and alexandre.boeglin at inria.fr pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it has started collecting material for I2ND This is very encouraging start and I hope everyone who has not contacted me is nevertheless already started :-) best wishes Lindsay From: fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-standardization-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Lindsay Frost Sent: Montag, 1. Juli 2013 16:39 To: Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena; fiware-standardization at lists.fi-ware.eu; Ernoe Kovacs; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; mcp at tid.es; nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu; Miguel Carrillo; Nuria De-Lama Sanchez; Carmen Perea Escribano; lorant.farkas at nsn.com Cc: Ernoe Kovacs Subject: [Fiware-standardization] Standardization_Plan_D11 4c - your input needed by next week Importance: High Dear all, please forward this if my mail does not reach all concerned. Please note, I will probably "deliver" whatever is made available to me on July 15th, and then leave Germany for 4 weeks holiday without email contact, in the Australian outback. So please reply soon. The time has come to panic again and write the FI-WARE D11.4c deliverable, due in July. Attached is a (badly formatted) doc version of the previous deliverable, which I only use to conveniently ask your opinion on a few "change tracked" remarks in yellow highlighting. I ask everyone receiving this to confirm if you agree with this basic approach to updating ? 1) confirm who is "contact person" per topic 2) ask the contact person to supply (new) names of the "sdo delegates" 3) ask the contact person to re-write the informative texts in each chapter (see attached file for getting the idea). Note that the EC complained when they read it about lack of details/deliverables (e.g BigData, HGI, OneM2M, OMA NGSI, others). 4) write to old and new sdo delegates asking for immediate update of the tables of activities for each SDO (and chase them!) I ask the contact person for each topic to re-write their informative texts in the wiki http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Standardization_Activities within the next week (otherwise I cannot guarantee the material will be included in Deliverable). Note that I already contacted everyone in some emails, asking for updates (see attached, (15.03.2013 " Request your input for D11.4 re Standardization activity in your Work Package") but only FRP at zurich.ibm.com and alexandre.boeglin at inria.fr replied (thanks guys!) Thank you for your confirmation (or improvement) of this approach. Best wishes! Lindsay ________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. frost at neclab.eu Mobile +49.163.275.1734 NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151 Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net Website: http://www.fi-ware.eu Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 Twitter: http://twitter.com/Fiware LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Delta-4c-4b.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 1112935 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WP12-D11.4c.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1189612 bytes Desc: not available URL: