On Oct 22, 2019, at 18:07, Pete Resnick <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> SenML is now in a position to play a centerpiece in the harmonized IoT data landscape. Not going for this draft is likely to thwart this opportunity. > > Sounds like a fine thing to aim for. Again, that says to me to add these to the existing registry. Right now the primary registry generally provides the preferred unit to encode some quantity. By mixing in the secondary registrations into the same registry, this mild coercion would be diluted outside the use cases that require them, and all of SenML would stand in the cesspool of derivative units we now find in other IoT standards. (Historically, if we had known we wanted to go this way, we would have chucked some of the units marked with an asterisk to the secondary registry. But that horse has left the barn already.) Grüße, Carsten
