From dromasca@avaya.com Tue Sep 24 05:48:02 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 600C811E811E; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 05:48:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.774 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.774 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.175, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F+WTz7e7I+t9; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 05:47:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CB5E11E811F; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 05:47:56 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhMJABqJQVKHCzI1/2dsb2JhbABQCoJmIThMBqwGlEqBIRZ0giUBAQEBAwEBAQ8oNAsMBAIBCA0EAQMBAQsCEgkHIQYLFAMGCAIEDgUIARmHUQMPAQYFoACTCQ2JUxeMZoEoBAYBgQcxBwaDF4EAA5YSAYhChWsDhTCDJIFoCRci X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,970,1371096000"; d="scan'208";a="29623959" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2013 08:47:55 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC03.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.13]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2013 08:39:28 -0400 Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC03.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.13]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:47:53 -0400 From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: The IESG Thread-Topic: WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) Thread-Index: AQHOuIcaxsyFS+dazUGYt1AMR1V4lZnU1AfQ Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 12:47:53 +0000 Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> References: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.45] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "coman@ietf.org" , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [coman] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 12:48:02 -0000 Hi,=20 I have a couple of issues with the way this charter is worded at this point= , which makes the scope of the proposed WG unclear to me on some respects.= =20 1. There is careful wording about 'link layer technologies of interest' and= about 'Security and management work that is not specific to the link layer= s being worked on is out of scope' - but no indication what are the criteri= a to identify these, or a list of initial such layer technologies. Is this = completely open by now? Is there a process to discuss and select those?=20 2. 'Selected MIB modules' - Did the team working on this proposal make any = preparation work and determine that writing MIB modules is the appropriate = way of meeting the manageability requirements for 6lo? If yes, where is thi= s documented? If no, maybe this item should be worded in a more general man= ner and talk about requirements for managing the IP-over-foo specifications= , followed by development of the appropriate information models and data mo= dels (the latest may be MIB modules, or may be something else).=20 Thanks and Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce- > bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 9:02 PM > To: IETF-Announce > Cc: 6lo WG > Subject: WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes > (6lo) >=20 > A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Internet Area. The > IESG has not made any determination yet. The following draft charter was > submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send > your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by 2013-10-03. >=20 > IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) > ------------------------------------------------ > Current Status: Proposed WG >=20 > Chairs: > Ulrich Herberg > Samita Chakrabarti >=20 > Technical advisors: > Ralph Droms >=20 > Assigned Area Director: > Brian Haberman >=20 > Mailing list > Address: 6lo@ietf.org > To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail- > archive/web/6lo/current/maillist.html >=20 > Charter: >=20 > 6lo focuses on Internet Area work that is needed for constrained node > networks with the characteristics of: > * limited power, memory and processing resources > * hard upper bounds on state, code space and processing cycles > * optimization of energy and network bandwidth usage > * lack of some layer 2 services like complete device connectivity and > broadcast/multicast >=20 > Specifically, 6lo will work on: >=20 > 1. IPv6-over-foo adaptation layer specifications using 6LoWPAN > technologies (RFC4944, RFC6282, RFC6775) for link layer technologies of > interest in constrained node networks >=20 > 2. Related MIB modules >=20 > 3. Specifications, such as header compression, that are applicable to > more than one adaptation layer specification >=20 > 4. Maintenance and informational documents required for the existing > IETF specifications in this space. >=20 > Only specifications targeting constrained node networks are in scope. > 6lo will work closely with the 6man working group, which will continue > to work on IP-over-foo documents outside the constrained node network > space and will continue to be the focal point for IPv6 maintenance. For > adaptation layer specifications that do not have implications on IPv6 > architecture, 6man will be notified about 6lo's working group last call. > Specifications that might have such an impact (e.g., by using IPv6 > addresses in a specific way or by introducing new ND options) will be > closely coordinated with 6man, and/or specific parts will be fanned out > to 6man documents. Beyond 6man, 6lo will also coordinate with LWIG and > INTAREA. >=20 > 6lo works on small, focused pieces of Internet Area work. 6lo does not > take on larger cross-layer efforts. The working group will continue to > reuse existing protocols and mechanisms whenever reasonable and > possible. >=20 > Security and management work that is not specific to the link layers > being worked on is out of scope. Work related to routing is out of > scope. 6lo will coordinate closely with the working groups in other > areas that focus on constrained node networks, such as ROLL (RTG) and > CoRE (APP). >=20 > Milestones: >=20 > TBD From bclaise@cisco.com Tue Sep 24 06:41:51 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B62C11E8129; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 06:41:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.479 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.479 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GhNeHv4ByUHj; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 06:41:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0A0211E811E; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 06:41:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5003; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1380030103; x=1381239703; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lZEdrWFXiplikTOfNYNw9nrl5V8EkqCygwqywGZJPTw=; b=TQc8yVuThr6aiZ9eoJxRfcB4V4ZQXNkE44e6pm9xprHJVg5PF7DwRGJC HHGQLHtKlZfJK9pt8/dSxUXTwQROM2tNEE2wAwAYROoyNst6OB5S2k4aq Mb1QtZvwGBYlFju5kNJX8Q+sE1E91J/UD3IRukjqqrRvKO4alJBrJ8Ckh 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgsFANeVQVKQ/khM/2dsb2JhbABQCoMHOEzAVYEdFnSCJQEBAQQBAQE1NgoBDAQLEQEDAQEKAxMIBwkDAgECAQ8GHwMGCAYNAQUCAQEFh2oDDwcFsw4NiWqMZoEoBAYBgTgHBoQXA5YTgWmBL4UDhhIDhTCDJjqBLAkX X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,970,1371081600"; d="scan'208";a="159949771" Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2013 13:41:40 +0000 Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r8ODfc2S021431; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:41:38 GMT Message-ID: <52419692.7050903@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:41:38 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" References: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "coman@ietf.org" , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [coman] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:41:51 -0000 Hi, > Hi, > > I have a couple of issues with the way this charter is worded at this point, which makes the scope of the proposed WG unclear to me on some respects. > > 1. There is careful wording about 'link layer technologies of interest' and about 'Security and management work that is not specific to the link layers being worked on is out of scope' - but no indication what are the criteria to identify these, or a list of initial such layer technologies. Is this completely open by now? Is there a process to discuss and select those? > > 2. 'Selected MIB modules' - Did the team working on this proposal make any preparation work and determine that writing MIB modules is the appropriate way of meeting the manageability requirements for 6lo? If yes, where is this documented? If no, maybe this item should be worded in a more general manner and talk about requirements for managing the IP-over-foo specifications, followed by development of the appropriate information models and data models (the latest may be MIB modules, or may be something else). I would add, for the 6lo people benefits, that http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ersue-constrained-mgmt-03 would be a good start. Disclaimer: maybe this draft was mentioned already. I'm not following the 6lo mailing list. Regards, Benoit > > > Thanks and Regards, > > Dan > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce- >> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG >> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 9:02 PM >> To: IETF-Announce >> Cc: 6lo WG >> Subject: WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes >> (6lo) >> >> A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Internet Area. The >> IESG has not made any determination yet. The following draft charter was >> submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send >> your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by 2013-10-03. >> >> IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) >> ------------------------------------------------ >> Current Status: Proposed WG >> >> Chairs: >> Ulrich Herberg >> Samita Chakrabarti >> >> Technical advisors: >> Ralph Droms >> >> Assigned Area Director: >> Brian Haberman >> >> Mailing list >> Address: 6lo@ietf.org >> To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo >> Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail- >> archive/web/6lo/current/maillist.html >> >> Charter: >> >> 6lo focuses on Internet Area work that is needed for constrained node >> networks with the characteristics of: >> * limited power, memory and processing resources >> * hard upper bounds on state, code space and processing cycles >> * optimization of energy and network bandwidth usage >> * lack of some layer 2 services like complete device connectivity and >> broadcast/multicast >> >> Specifically, 6lo will work on: >> >> 1. IPv6-over-foo adaptation layer specifications using 6LoWPAN >> technologies (RFC4944, RFC6282, RFC6775) for link layer technologies of >> interest in constrained node networks >> >> 2. Related MIB modules >> >> 3. Specifications, such as header compression, that are applicable to >> more than one adaptation layer specification >> >> 4. Maintenance and informational documents required for the existing >> IETF specifications in this space. >> >> Only specifications targeting constrained node networks are in scope. >> 6lo will work closely with the 6man working group, which will continue >> to work on IP-over-foo documents outside the constrained node network >> space and will continue to be the focal point for IPv6 maintenance. For >> adaptation layer specifications that do not have implications on IPv6 >> architecture, 6man will be notified about 6lo's working group last call. >> Specifications that might have such an impact (e.g., by using IPv6 >> addresses in a specific way or by introducing new ND options) will be >> closely coordinated with 6man, and/or specific parts will be fanned out >> to 6man documents. Beyond 6man, 6lo will also coordinate with LWIG and >> INTAREA. >> >> 6lo works on small, focused pieces of Internet Area work. 6lo does not >> take on larger cross-layer efforts. The working group will continue to >> reuse existing protocols and mechanisms whenever reasonable and >> possible. >> >> Security and management work that is not specific to the link layers >> being worked on is out of scope. Work related to routing is out of >> scope. 6lo will coordinate closely with the working groups in other >> areas that focus on constrained node networks, such as ROLL (RTG) and >> CoRE (APP). >> >> Milestones: >> >> TBD > _______________________________________________ > coman mailing list > coman@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/coman > . > From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Tue Sep 24 06:50:10 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F75521F92B8; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 06:50:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.151 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.151 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.098, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L1gJrB2L1khh; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 06:50:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1605D21F8445; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 06:49:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.46]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0504F20BDC; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:49:29 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lmE7D4NK7fxQ; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:49:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5833720BF3; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:49:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id C976628892A3; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:49:22 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:49:21 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Benoit Claise Message-ID: <20130924134921.GA19673@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Benoit Claise , "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , "coman@ietf.org" , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> References: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <52419692.7050903@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52419692.7050903@cisco.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "coman@ietf.org" , "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:50:10 -0000 On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 03:41:38PM +0200, Benoit Claise wrote: > Hi, > >Hi, > > > >I have a couple of issues with the way this charter is worded at this point, which makes the scope of the proposed WG unclear to me on some respects. > > > >1. There is careful wording about 'link layer technologies of interest' and about 'Security and management work that is not specific to the link layers being worked on is out of scope' - but no indication what are the criteria to identify these, or a list of initial such layer technologies. Is this completely open by now? Is there a process to discuss and select those? > > > >2. 'Selected MIB modules' - Did the team working on this proposal make any preparation work and determine that writing MIB modules is the appropriate way of meeting the manageability requirements for 6lo? If yes, where is this documented? If no, maybe this item should be worded in a more general manner and talk about requirements for managing the IP-over-foo specifications, followed by development of the appropriate information models and data models (the latest may be MIB modules, or may be something else). > I would add, for the 6lo people benefits, that > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ersue-constrained-mgmt-03 would be > a good start. > Disclaimer: maybe this draft was mentioned already. I'm not > following the 6lo mailing list. My understanding is that the charter refers to http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-6lowpan-mib-03 and that it not aims at a general discussion about network management of constrained devices. That is, it refers to concrete work instead of abstract work. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From bclaise@cisco.com Tue Sep 24 07:07:44 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5CAC11E8125; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 07:07:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rzGAloqIKbzM; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 07:07:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-4.cisco.com (ams-iport-4.cisco.com [144.254.224.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D436321E8088; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 07:07:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2138; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1380031651; x=1381241251; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jtFHaz0iqhtFXywosZH3UYg9Ae1AbDfSokXbtd7BD/w=; b=iobfbDk5e9+IX7Of4XMJQqg03N5gBx7XT0Bhvx3+8Hze+2Fspzf5eAqc 0s4xD00lyNfb4nCYf6kpWyNrlF0eez8Fpj47QKi0+CO6r0Q/48f2VF9UJ BObmf2IiCsCxK4CRUfUHclXwsafUIH3J8g4RqMr4PMNiosUnd/7QT3Ief 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgcFAFKcQVKQ/khL/2dsb2JhbABQCoMHOMEhgR0WdIIlAQEBBDg2ChELGAkWDwkDAgECAUUGAQwIAQEXh2oMvRWODoFKhB0Dl3yBL4UDi0WBZoFAOg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,970,1371081600"; d="scan'208";a="18245914" Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2013 14:07:17 +0000 Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r8OE7FhM022384; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:07:15 GMT Message-ID: <52419C92.9040807@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 16:07:15 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , "coman@ietf.org" , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> References: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <52419692.7050903@cisco.com> <20130924134921.GA19673@elstar.local> In-Reply-To: <20130924134921.GA19673@elstar.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:07:44 -0000 On 24/09/2013 15:49, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 03:41:38PM +0200, Benoit Claise wrote: >> Hi, >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have a couple of issues with the way this charter is worded at this point, which makes the scope of the proposed WG unclear to me on some respects. >>> >>> 1. There is careful wording about 'link layer technologies of interest' and about 'Security and management work that is not specific to the link layers being worked on is out of scope' - but no indication what are the criteria to identify these, or a list of initial such layer technologies. Is this completely open by now? Is there a process to discuss and select those? >>> >>> 2. 'Selected MIB modules' - Did the team working on this proposal make any preparation work and determine that writing MIB modules is the appropriate way of meeting the manageability requirements for 6lo? If yes, where is this documented? If no, maybe this item should be worded in a more general manner and talk about requirements for managing the IP-over-foo specifications, followed by development of the appropriate information models and data models (the latest may be MIB modules, or may be something else). >> I would add, for the 6lo people benefits, that >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ersue-constrained-mgmt-03 would be >> a good start. >> Disclaimer: maybe this draft was mentioned already. I'm not >> following the 6lo mailing list. > My understanding is that the charter refers to > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-6lowpan-mib-03 > > and that it not aims at a general discussion about network management > of constrained devices. That is, it refers to concrete work instead of > abstract work. That's actually my point. Should we focus on developing a MIB module, taking for granting that SNMP is THE way to manage constrained nodes? Or should we ask ourselves: based on the collected management requirements, let's see what is more appropriate? You know, like I2RS is currently doing, instead of jumping to NETCONF/YANG directly because it seemed like the solution. Regards, Bneoit > > /js > From dromasca@avaya.com Tue Sep 24 07:11:23 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 604B421E805F; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 07:11:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.778 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.778 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.179, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vfs3U84mJ18a; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 07:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89D8E11E812B; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 07:11:17 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvkKAN+cQVLGmAcV/2dsb2JhbABQCoJmIThSrAUHlEOBHRZ0giUBAQEBAxIoNBcEAgEIDQEDBAEBAQoUCQcyFAkIAgQBEggTB4djAQugGJxoF44OgRI4BoMXgQADmSuFKosegWaBPoIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,970,1371096000"; d="scan'208";a="29640602" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest-exch.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.21]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2013 10:11:16 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC02.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.12]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2013 10:08:14 -0400 Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC02.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.12]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 16:11:14 +0200 From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Benoit Claise , "coman@ietf.org" , "The IESG" , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> Thread-Topic: [6lo] [coman] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) Thread-Index: AQHOuSvTdpOBsM0FNUaX415I1ZVXXpnUxd+AgAAFAICAACJsQA== Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:11:13 +0000 Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E777A@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> References: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <52419692.7050903@cisco.com> <20130924134921.GA19673@elstar.local> <52419C92.9040807@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <52419C92.9040807@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.45] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:11:23 -0000 Exactly. The charter talks about 'related MIB modules'. Does this mean that= the 'IPv6 over 6LoWPAN' MIB module applies to all 'link layer technologies= of interest' and is all that is needed?=20 Maybe all these aspects were discussed. However, when I see 'development of= MIB modules' in the charter I feel we need to ask - is this what is requir= ed?=20 Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 5:07 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); coman@ietf.org; The IESG; 6lo WG > Subject: Re: [6lo] [coman] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource- > constrained Nodes (6lo) >=20 > On 24/09/2013 15:49, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 03:41:38PM +0200, Benoit Claise wrote: > >> Hi, > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I have a couple of issues with the way this charter is worded at > this point, which makes the scope of the proposed WG unclear to me on > some respects. > >>> > >>> 1. There is careful wording about 'link layer technologies of > interest' and about 'Security and management work that is not specific > to the link layers being worked on is out of scope' - but no indication > what are the criteria to identify these, or a list of initial such layer > technologies. Is this completely open by now? Is there a process to > discuss and select those? > >>> > >>> 2. 'Selected MIB modules' - Did the team working on this proposal > make any preparation work and determine that writing MIB modules is the > appropriate way of meeting the manageability requirements for 6lo? If > yes, where is this documented? If no, maybe this item should be worded > in a more general manner and talk about requirements for managing the > IP-over-foo specifications, followed by development of the appropriate > information models and data models (the latest may be MIB modules, or > may be something else). > >> I would add, for the 6lo people benefits, that > >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ersue-constrained-mgmt-03 would be a > >> good start. > >> Disclaimer: maybe this draft was mentioned already. I'm not following > >> the 6lo mailing list. > > My understanding is that the charter refers to > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-6lowpan-mib-03 > > > > and that it not aims at a general discussion about network management > > of constrained devices. That is, it refers to concrete work instead of > > abstract work. > That's actually my point. Should we focus on developing a MIB module, > taking for granting that SNMP is THE way to manage constrained nodes? Or > should we ask ourselves: based on the collected management requirements, > let's see what is more appropriate? > You know, like I2RS is currently doing, instead of jumping to > NETCONF/YANG directly because it seemed like the solution. >=20 > Regards, Bneoit >=20 > > > > /js > > From ulrich@herberg.name Wed Sep 25 15:07:38 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B66E221F9A99 for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:07:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.874 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.874 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ukkT-c0Fks7C for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:07:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-x234.google.com (mail-vc0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B246321F90CF for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:07:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id ld13so256070vcb.11 for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:07:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MWnNQ1piMQhuJWzzn1pppdqgn7P1N83cU+MCyLvsqIE=; b=GDxTubNdw7PWnmffBvQODY9wDDeGNjkiomScwRJBAQd0C/yI23J6C8BKJdxmJ58ou2 OPswG2TwLm2PWLAVVIYurbaZOr/s9qfhaTOL49jLirGXfsrHyG9/Ppc94QTAcT4Frpym bR4gZWBcjTRPJFF1pi14i9xBbgBwlTofhZCVk= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=MWnNQ1piMQhuJWzzn1pppdqgn7P1N83cU+MCyLvsqIE=; b=ZFcWSLO4ATzpgatysBQqikW3zkmEZyBnQjrT6YWDHiWP5zbjh23rkGrlNrAz/rFunK klyXTqd3nkXN5HbuqiJam3ZW0hIFpAeDOnTFiqotLbjiMMwOffzkWy5zREySVOGW0Rig 3lv5lt3NH7BqJR8jaKyfbRhGPqqXBDCSHwctEDc6hTE453i1jMAjZpSGcSk6h+hgqou/ 81NLjqFZ4KTvMWtZ4PBtbyeRW0oDKVdG3g2vZ4kXZ39tWArPzM5k8mbFZcWg26RUPYgS GyQq82loQv0C0G50xZhRU7WYEGnc8QFDy9j6LynU4hvYSe0W1GVxCEA2E3IPBjgo+CkE O5EA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnQrHaPRuqqcyK24EFO1jvZlRgRgQxi0Ff8EpA5E+bRzmaiJSG/1W0WkzhMbOl9tK4pmTLM MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.136.4 with SMTP id pw4mr35633976veb.10.1380146856529; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:07:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.168.8 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:07:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> References: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:07:36 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "coman@ietf.org" , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [coman] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:07:39 -0000 Dan, thank you for these comments. I think these are two important questions. See below: On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 5:47 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > Hi, > > I have a couple of issues with the way this charter is worded at this poi= nt, which makes the scope of the proposed WG unclear to me on some respects= . > > 1. There is careful wording about 'link layer technologies of interest' a= nd about 'Security and management work that is not specific to the link lay= ers being worked on is out of scope' - but no indication what are the crite= ria to identify these, or a list of initial such layer technologies. Is thi= s completely open by now? Is there a process to discuss and select those? Starting with an initial list of link layers (based on existing drafts) is one option, but would make it rather hard to add other link layers later, as it would require a recharter. I'd rather suggest to precise the process of selecting technologies, based on the criteria that are listed in the first paragraph of the current charter: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D OLD 1. IPv6-over-foo adaptation layer specifications using 6LoWPAN technologies (RFC4944, RFC6282, RFC6775) for link layer technologies of interest in constrained node networks NEW 1. IPv6-over-foo adaptation layer specifications using 6LoWPAN technologies (RFC4944, RFC6282, RFC6775) for link layer technologies of interest in constrained node networks. The process for selecting the link-layer technologies will be based on WG consensus. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Alternatively, we could further extend the criteria, e.g.: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D NEW 1. IPv6-over-foo adaptation layer specifications using 6LoWPAN technologies (RFC4944, RFC6282, RFC6775) for link layer technologies of interest in constrained node networks (i.e., that expose several of the above criteria for constrained node networks). The process for selecting the link-layer technologies will be based on WG consensus. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > 2. 'Selected MIB modules' - Did the team working on this proposal make an= y preparation work and determine that writing MIB modules is the appropriat= e way of meeting the manageability requirements for 6lo? If yes, where is t= his documented? If no, maybe this item should be worded in a more general m= anner and talk about requirements for managing the IP-over-foo specificatio= ns, followed by development of the appropriate information models and data = models (the latest may be MIB modules, or may be something else). This is a good point. I know the draft that Benoit cites well, and we had intense discussions about management for constrained devices with some of the people interested in "COMAN". At the last IETF there was a COMAN discussion, which concluded (AFAIK) that MIBs are probably good to keep as API (for compatibility and already existing work), but that SNMP is likely not appropriate for constrained devices (at least not as a general use case). I think that standardizing the 6lowpan MIB would be useful, but we could make this bullet point more general and not only focus on MIB modules. How about: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D OLD 2. Related MIB modules NEW 2. Related interfaces for management applications (e.g., MIB modules) =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Best regards Ulrich >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce- >> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG >> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 9:02 PM >> To: IETF-Announce >> Cc: 6lo WG >> Subject: WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes >> (6lo) >> >> A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Internet Area. The >> IESG has not made any determination yet. The following draft charter was >> submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send >> your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by 2013-10-03. >> >> IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) >> ------------------------------------------------ >> Current Status: Proposed WG >> >> Chairs: >> Ulrich Herberg >> Samita Chakrabarti >> >> Technical advisors: >> Ralph Droms >> >> Assigned Area Director: >> Brian Haberman >> >> Mailing list >> Address: 6lo@ietf.org >> To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo >> Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail- >> archive/web/6lo/current/maillist.html >> >> Charter: >> >> 6lo focuses on Internet Area work that is needed for constrained node >> networks with the characteristics of: >> * limited power, memory and processing resources >> * hard upper bounds on state, code space and processing cycles >> * optimization of energy and network bandwidth usage >> * lack of some layer 2 services like complete device connectivity and >> broadcast/multicast >> >> Specifically, 6lo will work on: >> >> 1. IPv6-over-foo adaptation layer specifications using 6LoWPAN >> technologies (RFC4944, RFC6282, RFC6775) for link layer technologies of >> interest in constrained node networks >> >> 2. Related MIB modules >> >> 3. Specifications, such as header compression, that are applicable to >> more than one adaptation layer specification >> >> 4. Maintenance and informational documents required for the existing >> IETF specifications in this space. >> >> Only specifications targeting constrained node networks are in scope. >> 6lo will work closely with the 6man working group, which will continue >> to work on IP-over-foo documents outside the constrained node network >> space and will continue to be the focal point for IPv6 maintenance. For >> adaptation layer specifications that do not have implications on IPv6 >> architecture, 6man will be notified about 6lo's working group last call. >> Specifications that might have such an impact (e.g., by using IPv6 >> addresses in a specific way or by introducing new ND options) will be >> closely coordinated with 6man, and/or specific parts will be fanned out >> to 6man documents. Beyond 6man, 6lo will also coordinate with LWIG and >> INTAREA. >> >> 6lo works on small, focused pieces of Internet Area work. 6lo does not >> take on larger cross-layer efforts. The working group will continue to >> reuse existing protocols and mechanisms whenever reasonable and >> possible. >> >> Security and management work that is not specific to the link layers >> being worked on is out of scope. Work related to routing is out of >> scope. 6lo will coordinate closely with the working groups in other >> areas that focus on constrained node networks, such as ROLL (RTG) and >> CoRE (APP). >> >> Milestones: >> >> TBD > _______________________________________________ > coman mailing list > coman@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/coman From ulrich@herberg.name Wed Sep 25 19:59:56 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57CA311E8133 for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:59:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.906 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Goqjou+DVgsT for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:59:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-x233.google.com (mail-vc0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBCC611E8135 for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:59:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id ht10so419257vcb.10 for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:59:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CqNRlWiTigsS6AM4VKp0T0wbv7n/yAE5nunoLqylp2E=; b=nKwVxoyLA+43SVia9ipgHrQb9ej8nRJqzD7iR454E95P2OaGw84pxFdEAnQgupXn5C 4GE+D5XdZ3qzpTtwi+UIN96f3VEKczOjikdAWFAAFrXuWiJkZ0HV0q6+U/hSrc5fkj50 MIVxm56rlnZ+z9mbGHghsuiAqFCqMraJCe92s= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=CqNRlWiTigsS6AM4VKp0T0wbv7n/yAE5nunoLqylp2E=; b=Cwz6HzCVbovWz2G1g1Ld9G9QjJvKu4d32cOlyeIoMumhABZSHpWFGmsvxI5aSuARLH Bi1sRAEKLCKraeYi0LV92EfIMOO9RTfCNVqwgoL4Ok1Os7S/HYLH1Z/LBDdDtBphGmDh 7RgtabjTB+VVTPg+Yqg5gIEXXocqr+CuEVs3loIEvILnPenHEehStEjDH7enNxOnbA+8 pVGEMdQ+fonl7XlfVJttE/ZhZ854KFiezHxCAhjUAH8y3W4DCVXOvDAcqF1kvAfvPgnv LN1cQlXfJbYd2bRh0JchVGqq5VsccqMjBqSs6xMkXv+wvFNwoJQgf2yIS1FKVuj+nSmO dCZQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnvWBYOt05LyRPJ7DeCGFZXHDlJvDM7B1FTYAuKbUxMS95Tuh84XpBcRLMm3a1IweyWC29A MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.249.67 with SMTP id mj3mr15307420vcb.23.1380164392093; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:59:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.168.8 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:59:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <52419692.7050903@cisco.com> <20130924134921.GA19673@elstar.local> <52419C92.9040807@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:59:51 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: Samita Chakrabarti Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Benoit Claise , "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" , "coman@ietf.org" , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:59:56 -0000 One additional comment to what Samita said: > That's actually my point. Should we focus on developing a MIB module, tak= ing for granting that SNMP is THE way to manage constrained nodes? Or shoul= d we ask ourselves: based on the collected management requirements, let's s= ee what is more appropriate? > You know, like I2RS is currently doing, instead of jumping to NETCONF/YAN= G directly because it seemed like the solution. > > > [SC>] We should discuss the scope of management interfaces work in the w= g meeting. Restricting to SNMP is certainly has its limitations. Managemen= t configuration and reporting parameters requirements and Interfaces are im= portant. Personally, I'm in favor of a common architecture for the managem= ent infrastructure as much as possible for the 6lo devices and then leave h= ooks for L2-technology specific information. UH> We had some discussion at the unofficial COMAN meeting last IETF where agreed that MIBs are not necessarily tied to SNMP (although that is currently the case). Peter van der Stok offered to work on a draft that uses COAP for accessing a MIB module. I am not sure about the status of that draft, but this is just to say that an interface is not necessarily identical with the protocol accessing that interface. Regards Ulrich From samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com Wed Sep 25 18:47:28 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D210F21F964C; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 18:47:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ymo6MxUADssy; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 18:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA52611E80F7; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 18:47:08 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c618062d-b7fda8e0000024c6-41-5243921b7376 Received: from EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.96]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id EF.7A.09414.B1293425; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 03:47:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.96]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:47:06 -0400 From: Samita Chakrabarti To: Benoit Claise , "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , "coman@ietf.org" , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> Thread-Topic: [6lo] [coman] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) Thread-Index: AQHOuSvamwBJX+Jjm0yf6TLvF353+JnVKnSAgAAFAICAAgv5EA== Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 01:47:05 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <52419692.7050903@cisco.com> <20130924134921.GA19673@elstar.local> <52419C92.9040807@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <52419C92.9040807@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.135] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPgq70JOcggznvpCyapwhYHH0sYXGz ZzerxdefP1gtZvyZyOzA6nFw5Rx2jym/N7J6LFnykymAOYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoEr49ORfpaC F3wVq8+eYGlgbOLpYuTkkBAwkbj7/DYzhC0mceHeejYQW0jgKKPEhGU6XYxcQPZyRol5sxoY QRJsAlYSHb172EFsEYFVjBIdZ+VBbGGBOImH/1ayQsTjJY6/vQhlO0m8+vcHrJ5FQFXi14Ed QHEODl4BX4nOG4EQu94zSpz/mglicwpoSsz/9pcFxGYEuuf7qTVMIDazgLjErSfzmSDuFJBY suc81M2iEi8f/2OFsJUlvs95xAJRryOxYPcnNghbW2LZwtdg9bwCghInZz5hmcAoOgvJ2FlI WmYhaZmFpGUBI8sqRo7S4tSy3HQjg02MwHg5JsGmu4Nxz0vLQ4zSHCxK4ryr9M4ECgmkJ5ak ZqemFqQWxReV5qQWH2Jk4uCUamDsWOW++MqDJxqfdtg0pvHq5blZ746/s0jiqVnXyymOav7t AsEsr7v3xh1JW5mn07uAz+ia0X0J+e+h104kpnWtPiDSv///WyWV/ytY92x7kHVuqbHGj4n7 Mu69aX1SLSOj9FTuUv0/y9VNZ/ubeJVT3nraRPTHvwpa3HUjm3FF7NuTIpvMs88psRRnJBpq MRcVJwIATHx/E2UCAAA= X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 01:43:11 -0700 Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 01:47:29 -0000 Hi Benoit, >> I would add, for the 6lo people benefits, that >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ersue-constrained-mgmt-03 would be a=20 >> good start. [SC>]=20 [SC>] Thanks for pointing to this document (Problem Statement, Usecases an= d Requirement on management of constrained nodes). This is definitely a good start in understanding the problems and requireme= nts. >> Disclaimer: maybe this draft was mentioned already. I'm not following=20 >> the 6lo mailing list. [SC>] No, it is not currently listed in the milestones update. > My understanding is that the charter refers to > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-6lowpan-mib-03 > > and that it not aims at a general discussion about network management=20 > of constrained devices. That is, it refers to concrete work instead of=20 > abstract work. [SC>]=20 [SC>] It is listed in the 6lo listinfo and proposed milestones for discuss= ions. Of-course 6lo WG would decide if we want to define MIB only d= ocument and/or interfaces. That's actually my point. Should we focus on developing a MIB module, takin= g for granting that SNMP is THE way to manage constrained nodes? Or should = we ask ourselves: based on the collected management requirements, let's see= what is more appropriate? You know, like I2RS is currently doing, instead of jumping to NETCONF/YANG = directly because it seemed like the solution. [SC>] We should discuss the scope of management interfaces work in the wg = meeting. Restricting to SNMP is certainly has its limitations. Management = configuration and reporting parameters requirements and Interfaces are impo= rtant. Personally, I'm in favor of a common architecture for the managemen= t infrastructure as much as possible for the 6lo devices and then leave hoo= ks for L2-technology specific information. Best regards, -Samita From mehmet.ersue@nsn.com Thu Sep 26 01:47:38 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 995C121F9CB0 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 01:47:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JTgcxXanWdYW for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 01:47:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AA1421F9A90 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 01:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id r8Q8lVoG006931 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:47:31 +0200 Received: from DEMUHTC004.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.42.35]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id r8Q8lVIv018024 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:47:31 +0200 Received: from DEMUHTC009.nsn-intra.net (10.159.42.40) by DEMUHTC004.nsn-intra.net (10.159.42.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:47:30 +0200 Received: from DEMUMBX005.nsn-intra.net ([169.254.5.164]) by DEMUHTC009.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.42.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:47:30 +0200 From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" To: "coman@ietf.org" , ext Samita Chakrabarti Thread-Topic: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) Thread-Index: AQHOuSvamwBJX+Jjm0yf6TLvF353+JnVKnSAgAAFAICAAgv5EIAAe9Nw Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:47:30 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.159.42.97] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-purgate-type: clean X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de X-purgate: clean X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information) X-purgate-size: 2557 X-purgate-ID: 151667::1380185251-00005753-1C0EB983/0-0/0-0 Subject: [coman] FW: [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:47:38 -0000 It was unclear whether this got through to coman maillist. Samita: To be able to post directly, it would be good to subscribe to coman= maillist. Thx. Cheers,=20 Mehmet=20 -----Original Message----- From: coman-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:coman-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of e= xt Samita Chakrabarti Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 3:47 AM To: Benoit Claise; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); coman@ietf.org; The IESG; 6lo WG Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constr= ained Nodes (6lo) Hi Benoit, >> I would add, for the 6lo people benefits, that >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ersue-constrained-mgmt-03 would be a=20 >> good start. [SC>]=20 [SC>] Thanks for pointing to this document (Problem Statement, Usecases an= d Requirement on management of constrained nodes). This is definitely a good start in understanding the problems and requireme= nts. >> Disclaimer: maybe this draft was mentioned already. I'm not following=20 >> the 6lo mailing list. [SC>] No, it is not currently listed in the milestones update. > My understanding is that the charter refers to > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-6lowpan-mib-03 > > and that it not aims at a general discussion about network management=20 > of constrained devices. That is, it refers to concrete work instead of=20 > abstract work. [SC>]=20 [SC>] It is listed in the 6lo listinfo and proposed milestones for discuss= ions. Of-course 6lo WG would decide if we want to define MIB only d= ocument and/or interfaces. That's actually my point. Should we focus on developing a MIB module, takin= g for granting that SNMP is THE way to manage constrained nodes? Or should = we ask ourselves: based on the collected management requirements, let's see= what is more appropriate? You know, like I2RS is currently doing, instead of jumping to NETCONF/YANG = directly because it seemed like the solution. [SC>] We should discuss the scope of management interfaces work in the wg = meeting. Restricting to SNMP is certainly has its limitations. Management = configuration and reporting parameters requirements and Interfaces are impo= rtant. Personally, I'm in favor of a common architecture for the managemen= t infrastructure as much as possible for the 6lo devices and then leave hoo= ks for L2-technology specific information. Best regards, -Samita _______________________________________________ coman mailing list coman@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/coman From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Thu Sep 26 06:29:05 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92AE921F9D52; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 06:29:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.161 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.161 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.088, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3U8tPFGn5sth; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 06:29:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 393DF21E804E; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 06:28:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.47]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4834020BC1; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:28:22 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NZN7qDPKuVKD; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:28:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D756420A1F; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:28:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 167BD288C993; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:28:17 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:28:17 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Benoit Claise Message-ID: <20130926132817.GB25326@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Benoit Claise , "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , "coman@ietf.org" , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> References: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <52419692.7050903@cisco.com> <20130924134921.GA19673@elstar.local> <52419C92.9040807@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52419C92.9040807@cisco.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "coman@ietf.org" , "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 13:29:05 -0000 On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 04:07:15PM +0200, Benoit Claise wrote: > >My understanding is that the charter refers to > > > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-6lowpan-mib-03 > > > >and that it not aims at a general discussion about network management > >of constrained devices. That is, it refers to concrete work instead of > >abstract work. > That's actually my point. Should we focus on developing a MIB > module, taking for granting that SNMP is THE way to manage > constrained nodes? Or should we ask ourselves: based on the > collected management requirements, let's see what is more > appropriate? One more time: The goal here is to define the number and the semantics of the counters that need to implemented in the 6LoWPAN layer in order to enable basic monitoring and troubleshooting. The formalism we have (as a standard) for that are MIB modules. There are several ways to transport the data over various protocols today and there may be even more in the future. This activity is about getting agreement what exactly needs to be counted where in the 6LoWPAN processing. > You know, like I2RS is currently doing, instead of jumping to > NETCONF/YANG directly because it seemed like the solution. If you believe this is needed here in order to define a bunch of counters. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From dromasca@avaya.com Thu Sep 26 09:22:28 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0036111E814F; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:22:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.282 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.282 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.317, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hfbGcCixp6xI; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:22:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7A2011E8110; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:22:13 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjUMAMheRFLGmAcV/2dsb2JhbABYA4JmIThSrAsHlEKBHxZ0giUBAQEBAxIoPwwCAgIBCA0BAgEEAQEBChQJBxsXFAkIAgQBDQUIEweHZAELn0idAQSPHCEQBwYLgwyBAQOUIIUMhSqLH4FmgT6CKg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,986,1371096000"; d="scan'208";a="29489207" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest-exch.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.21]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 26 Sep 2013 12:21:53 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC02.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.12]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 26 Sep 2013 12:18:43 -0400 Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC02.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.12]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:21:51 +0200 From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Juergen Schoenwaelder , "Benoit Claise" Thread-Topic: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) Thread-Index: AQHOurxHSwfuKwcTskCD10bY5P6ky5nYMvXA Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:21:51 +0000 Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E9913@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> References: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <52419692.7050903@cisco.com> <20130924134921.GA19673@elstar.local> <52419C92.9040807@cisco.com> <20130926132817.GB25326@elstar.local> In-Reply-To: <20130926132817.GB25326@elstar.local> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.45] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "coman@ietf.org" , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:22:28 -0000 Hi,=20 So instead of 'development of MIB modules' the charter should maybe say 'In= formation Model for the counters in the 6LoWPAN layer for basic monitoring = and troubleshooting using SMIv2 MIB modules format'? Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs- > university.de] > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 4:28 PM > To: Benoit Claise > Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); coman@ietf.org; The IESG; 6lo WG > Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource- > constrained Nodes (6lo) >=20 > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 04:07:15PM +0200, Benoit Claise wrote: > > >My understanding is that the charter refers to > > > > > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-6lowpan-mib-03 > > > > > >and that it not aims at a general discussion about network management > > >of constrained devices. That is, it refers to concrete work instead > > >of abstract work. > > That's actually my point. Should we focus on developing a MIB module, > > taking for granting that SNMP is THE way to manage constrained nodes? > > Or should we ask ourselves: based on the collected management > > requirements, let's see what is more appropriate? >=20 > One more time: The goal here is to define the number and the semantics > of the counters that need to implemented in the 6LoWPAN layer in order > to enable basic monitoring and troubleshooting. The formalism we have > (as a standard) for that are MIB modules. >=20 > There are several ways to transport the data over various protocols > today and there may be even more in the future. This activity is about > getting agreement what exactly needs to be counted where in the 6LoWPAN > processing. >=20 > > You know, like I2RS is currently doing, instead of jumping to > > NETCONF/YANG directly because it seemed like the solution. >=20 > If you believe this is needed here in order to define a bunch of > counters. >=20 > /js >=20 > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Thu Sep 26 14:52:36 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D31421E8088; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:52:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.165 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.165 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RaTDWAEimtHw; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:52:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2221421F9F21; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:52:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.46]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B155E20BD7; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:52:28 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xtpw6HFEXdxH; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:52:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9D572092C; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:52:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4E4E3288D1E8; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:52:21 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:52:21 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" Message-ID: <20130926215221.GA26059@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , Benoit Claise , "coman@ietf.org" , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> References: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <52419692.7050903@cisco.com> <20130924134921.GA19673@elstar.local> <52419C92.9040807@cisco.com> <20130926132817.GB25326@elstar.local> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E9913@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E9913@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Benoit Claise , "coman@ietf.org" , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 21:52:36 -0000 On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 04:21:51PM +0000, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > So instead of 'development of MIB modules' the charter should maybe say 'Information Model for the counters in the 6LoWPAN layer for basic monitoring and troubleshooting using SMIv2 MIB modules format'? > You can argue for this but I believe this is not useful. We have ~20 years of MIB modules and frankly most of them (and in particular those getting implemented) are focusing on statistics and counters. You can now go into the direction of saying we stop doing this concrete down to earth data modeling work and instead we do information models (in a yet to be agree format). Is this going to help implementors? Is this going to help people deploying stuff? /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From ulrich@herberg.name Thu Sep 26 15:06:49 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C49EA21E80CA for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:06:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.916 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JHKksweSGAc4 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:06:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-x236.google.com (mail-vb0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C097421F9B8A for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:06:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id q14so1309840vbe.13 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:06:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xNcBL6xT/BMEdvErXGxxtQCBVyHN9FVO02qIYhnCbII=; b=nLV0u/ZtvWL2BASM9rXUhj4mDAxV8/OTWA79k+kliBjKH85eQD0VrfELucKtX/uO0W 6mkmqF+EFShD8kddMGDe3VxpkLk4UFwSoSL8ndnWQdTWlSgcujN/GOcznWOPUl3vltlq PYBH8NpN0puusmXB49Tcex1zD4NtfBMUlsqvU= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xNcBL6xT/BMEdvErXGxxtQCBVyHN9FVO02qIYhnCbII=; b=JcyvSGtEI7x01Oiuty4l4OJ5DVdohjGOC5JuDa9UUjz7p27UBfHeTXeWiRE/aHWQw5 pna6fjDaZkTxWPKaWECBNVasj9WtCv9Ip79kO1PMS6bATdDOCub0193v42/7jJVMxydw m9/SlCPyaf0a8Bmcib/BgKKfZyhxfOmcSYPVZOPBohfFy/x5V9cINqwmJNNdgt0yNfyv CtZMQKvYI5X47i+a41bTGddbW0QpD+cckzSwjJOLwdoF1Y4n0uDSkUbM04OUBHWHXsEm GBpey2VaeTs4Jk52PHAXS2kDHGOWZcGtHvJ2t++gR8ZergF9CV2YrY+qoExRH479dk/k 09hA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlioBH4SmhpzPjoN1KhkmZ3NyhOQR1HD+EHM1r8/8hlBhnR11tOLZ2ydfDlDSSgrJ5OvXMs MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.133.66 with SMTP id pa2mr2768698veb.18.1380233208226; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:06:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.168.8 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:06:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130926215221.GA26059@elstar.local> References: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <52419692.7050903@cisco.com> <20130924134921.GA19673@elstar.local> <52419C92.9040807@cisco.com> <20130926132817.GB25326@elstar.local> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E9913@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <20130926215221.GA26059@elstar.local> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:06:48 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: Juergen Schoenwaelder , "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , Benoit Claise , "coman@ietf.org" , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:06:50 -0000 J=FCrgen, Dan, in order to come to a quick conclusion about this charter item, can you both indicate whether my proposed change would be acceptable? (or propose something better?) =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D OLD 2. Related MIB modules NEW 2. Related interfaces for management applications (e.g., MIB modules) =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D That would immediately cover the 6lowpan MIB, but not necessarily limit the scope to MIB modules. Best regards Ulrich On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 04:21:51PM +0000, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >> >> So instead of 'development of MIB modules' the charter should maybe say = 'Information Model for the counters in the 6LoWPAN layer for basic monitori= ng and troubleshooting using SMIv2 MIB modules format'? >> > > You can argue for this but I believe this is not useful. We have ~20 > years of MIB modules and frankly most of them (and in particular those > getting implemented) are focusing on statistics and counters. You can > now go into the direction of saying we stop doing this concrete down > to earth data modeling work and instead we do information models (in a > yet to be agree format). Is this going to help implementors? Is this > going to help people deploying stuff? > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 > _______________________________________________ > coman mailing list > coman@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/coman From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Thu Sep 26 15:18:26 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E042421E80BE; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:18:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.169 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sLYbYDOUZbTl; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:18:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFE8821F9B92; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:18:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.48]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B93B20BD7; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:18:21 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6j05CUDF3pBk; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:18:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2D5F20B6C; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:18:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3C0C5288D451; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:18:14 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:18:14 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Ulrich Herberg Message-ID: <20130926221814.GE26059@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Herberg , "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , Benoit Claise , "coman@ietf.org" , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> References: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <52419692.7050903@cisco.com> <20130924134921.GA19673@elstar.local> <52419C92.9040807@cisco.com> <20130926132817.GB25326@elstar.local> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E9913@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <20130926215221.GA26059@elstar.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Benoit Claise , "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" , "coman@ietf.org" , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:18:27 -0000 On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 03:06:48PM -0700, Ulrich Herberg wrote: > Jürgen, Dan, > > in order to come to a quick conclusion about this charter item, can > you both indicate whether my proposed change would be acceptable? (or > propose something better?) > > ==================== > OLD > 2. Related MIB modules > > NEW > 2. Related interfaces for management applications (e.g., MIB modules) > ==================== > > That would immediately cover the 6lowpan MIB, but not necessarily > limit the scope to MIB modules. > This clearly is at the political layer. Within the IETF, we have SMIv2 to write MIB modules (~20 years of experience) and YANG to write YANG modules (~2 (?) years of experience). Do you want an open ended charter or something concrete? In fact, I would argue that it is not 6lo's charter item to invent how contrained networks are managed nor is it their charter to define yet another data modeling approach. Bottom line: Your suggested change is opening up how things are done but I frankly do not see any/many choices I consider to be in scope of 6lo. (And hence I am not sure the change is helpful.) /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From cabo@tzi.org Thu Sep 26 23:58:12 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1824211E812A; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:58:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.173 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.173 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.076, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mtdVN9f3IxH8; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:58:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E793B11E8128; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:58:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8R6w36C016938; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:58:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p548941DC.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.65.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B7E33C71; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:58:02 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <20130926221814.GE26059@elstar.local> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:58:02 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9DD59AEB-EF1B-47B2-B81C-00E38F1534F3@tzi.org> References: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <52419692.7050903@cisco.com> <20130924134921.GA19673@elstar.local> <52419C92.9040807@cisco.com> <20130926132817.GB25326@elstar.local> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E9913@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <20130926215221.GA26059@elstar.local> <20130926221814.GE26059@elstar.local> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: coman@ietf.org, The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 06:58:12 -0000 On Sep 27, 2013, at 00:18, Juergen Schoenwaelder = wrote: > This clearly is at the political layer. Within the IETF, we have SMIv2 > to write MIB modules (~20 years of experience) and YANG to write YANG > modules (~2 (?) years of experience). Yes, and that's why it's pretty natural to do the 6LoWPAN MIB in SMIv2. But it's not natural to decouple 6lo from further developments in the = management data modeling space. (It never occurred to me that "MIB modules" might be read to say "SMIv2 = only", but now that you say it, it indeed can be interpreted in a narrow = sense.) > Do you want an open ended > charter or something concrete? In fact, I would argue that it is not > 6lo's charter item to invent how contrained networks are managed nor > is it their charter to define yet another data modeling approach. Neither. 6lo's job is to do the data models based on its domain = knowledge of the adaptation and link layers, not to do new data modeling = approaches. But if a new one becomes viable for constrained node networks, we = shouldn't have to recharter to use it. Now, on to the wording, maybe we can fix that: OLD: > 2. Related MIB modules Hmm: > 2. Related interfaces for management applications (e.g., MIB modules) NEW: > 2. Related MIB modules (including, where applicable, management data = models using other established IETF management data modeling schemes). Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com Thu Sep 26 19:35:24 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B19911E80ED; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 19:35:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yP-yV5jm7pYX; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 19:35:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56DD321F923D; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 19:35:15 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c618062d-b7fda8e0000024c6-6d-5244eedfa372 Received: from EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.81]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 11.DB.09414.0EEE4425; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 04:35:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:35:10 -0400 From: Samita Chakrabarti To: Juergen Schoenwaelder , "Ulrich Herberg" Thread-Topic: [6lo] [coman] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) Thread-Index: AQHOuwZKoj/F99AqgUuCIt0mzjTVBJnY2a/Q Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 02:35:10 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <52419692.7050903@cisco.com> <20130924134921.GA19673@elstar.local> <52419C92.9040807@cisco.com> <20130926132817.GB25326@elstar.local> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E9913@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <20130926215221.GA26059@elstar.local> <20130926221814.GE26059@elstar.local> In-Reply-To: <20130926221814.GE26059@elstar.local> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.135] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPoO6Ddy5BBs9Wilk0TxGwOPpYwuJm z25Wi68/f7BazPgzkdni6safjBZXX19gc2D3OLhyDrvHlN8bWT2evXjA5LFkyU8mjw0HPANY o7hsUlJzMstSi/TtErgytjb/Yyx4wl8xc7FdA+Nbni5GTg4JAROJ83tWs0PYYhIX7q1n62Lk 4hASOMoo8X71RVYIZzmjxP1PhxlBqtgErCQ6eveAdYgIZEl82L6RGaSIWWAVo8TbLy+ZQBLC AnESD/+tZIUoipc4/vYilG0k8e7uY6BBHBwsAqoSx5qNQMK8Ar4S/9d/Z4dY9o1Z4u3+62DL OIHqt6zaDbaMEei876fWgM1nFhCXuPVkPhPE2QISS/acZ4awRSVePv7HCmErS3yf84gFol5P 4sbUKWwQtrbEsoWvmSEWC0qcnPmEZQKj2CwkY2chaZmFpGUWkpYFjCyrGDlKi1PLctONDDYx AiPumASb7g7GPS8tDzFKc7AoifN+eescJCSQnliSmp2aWpBaFF9UmpNafIiRiYNTqoHRZ+ec 5qzb8Txc6zw4XI6ndzYkmG/dcTZjxS2ZP9n2EglGXZpq6ZkzmUvXqjz5Pvt1/ePsrRImNqpf dGU97igZvHhZfpMvL/yn/aJ5yju+6DHl9brPLHArX3su78uVVXNSrj9fyX91Qk+J8FFN02M2 ju217656R3XNdzu0fcGKFz2M2padTFOUWIozEg21mIuKEwFMpD2dhgIAAA== X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:08:18 -0700 Cc: Benoit Claise , "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" , "coman@ietf.org" , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 02:35:24 -0000 Hi Juergen, Please see below inline. -----Original Message----- From: 6lo-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lo-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Juerg= en Schoenwaelder Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 3:18 PM To: Ulrich Herberg Cc: Benoit Claise; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); coman@ietf.org; The IESG; 6lo WG Subject: Re: [6lo] [coman] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constr= ained Nodes (6lo) On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 03:06:48PM -0700, Ulrich Herberg wrote: > J=FCrgen, Dan, >=20 > in order to come to a quick conclusion about this charter item, can=20 > you both indicate whether my proposed change would be acceptable? (or=20 > propose something better?) >=20 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > OLD > 2. Related MIB modules >=20 > NEW > 2. Related interfaces for management applications (e.g., MIB modules)=20 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > That would immediately cover the 6lowpan MIB, but not necessarily=20 > limit the scope to MIB modules. >=20 This clearly is at the political layer. Within the IETF, we have SMIv2 to w= rite MIB modules (~20 years of experience) and YANG to write YANG modules (= ~2 (?) years of experience). Do you want an open ended charter or something= concrete? In fact, I would argue that it is not 6lo's charter item to inve= nt how contrained networks are managed nor is it their charter to define ye= t another data modeling approach. [SC>]=20 [SC>]=20 MIB models might be ~20 years old but 6lo or 6Lowpan did not exist then. The above proposed change in the charter should cover MIB modules as well a= s other new approaches that are applicable for IOT devices and controllers. I am not sure why 6lo should restrict itself to MIB only when the others in= the industry are considering different types of modeling and interfaces. I think the information model definition is a fine idea for applying to dif= ferent types of implementations. Thanks, -Samita From bclaise@cisco.com Fri Sep 27 01:32:41 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7555611E8133; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 01:32:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hOqIyCuJ49FL; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 01:32:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73F7621F9F70; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 01:32:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1708; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1380270757; x=1381480357; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ru2V5DQGDKrWZSdSZaL6FQcn4fhHfGXXkE/lSLvUAG8=; b=HZKYfvvlLeNGssJrRquZ2c9cUvGnsF+gr641qF6UxGbUwQ3uEw9Nzznk 1yFd/HIH4pFWysvA/p69yV/mx7lKEsRfypyzM/dGkeautCStbkJy4n/eD p3VWINV0mvRlN7OUQczWAjkTI2ScnZJv8Au8A2ZQnLxgE2g4FEyswkQ9W k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgcFAJtBRVKQ/khR/2dsb2JhbABYgwc4wRyBHBZ0giUBAQEEMgEFQBELGAkWDwkDAgECAUUGAQwIAQEXh2sMukePWIQeA5Qgg12BL4UDi0aBZoFAOg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,991,1371081600"; d="scan'208";a="160058923" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Sep 2013 08:32:35 +0000 Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r8R8WXBA024431; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:32:33 GMT Message-ID: <524542A1.1090408@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:32:33 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , "coman@ietf.org" , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> References: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <52419692.7050903@cisco.com> <20130924134921.GA19673@elstar.local> <52419C92.9040807@cisco.com> <20130926132817.GB25326@elstar.local> In-Reply-To: <20130926132817.GB25326@elstar.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:32:41 -0000 Jürgen, > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 04:07:15PM +0200, Benoit Claise wrote: >>> My understanding is that the charter refers to >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-6lowpan-mib-03 >>> >>> and that it not aims at a general discussion about network management >>> of constrained devices. That is, it refers to concrete work instead of >>> abstract work. >> That's actually my point. Should we focus on developing a MIB >> module, taking for granting that SNMP is THE way to manage >> constrained nodes? Or should we ask ourselves: based on the >> collected management requirements, let's see what is more >> appropriate? > One more time: The goal here is to define the number and the semantics > of the counters that need to implemented in the 6LoWPAN layer in order > to enable basic monitoring and troubleshooting. The formalism we have > (as a standard) for that are MIB modules. > > There are several ways to transport the data over various protocols > today and there may be even more in the future. This activity is about > getting agreement what exactly needs to be counted where in the > 6LoWPAN processing. Interesting. And not point to say "one more time...", I only focus on the charter text, which is the contract between the IESG and WG. When I read it: Specifically, 6lo will work on: ... 2. Related MIB modules How am I supposed to understand what you have in mind? This specific entry has to improve. Regards, Benoit > >> You know, like I2RS is currently doing, instead of jumping to >> NETCONF/YANG directly because it seemed like the solution. > If you believe this is needed here in order to define a bunch of > counters. > > /js > From dromasca@avaya.com Fri Sep 27 07:38:08 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A57321F9E00; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 07:38:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.29 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.309, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N7P5mwZI7OEZ; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 07:38:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C8E821F9E43; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 07:38:02 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApkKAKyWRVKHCzI1/2dsb2JhbABXA4JmIThSrAKUSoEcFnSCJQEBAQECARIoPwUHAgICAQgNAQIBBAEBAQoUCQcbFxQJCAIEDgUIEweHXgYBnWqcYQSOFIEIIRAHBguDDoEBA5QihQyFKosfgWaBPoFxOQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,993,1371096000"; d="scan'208";a="25682753" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 27 Sep 2013 10:38:00 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC04.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.14]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 27 Sep 2013 10:29:26 -0400 Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC04.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.14]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:37:57 +0200 From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Juergen Schoenwaelder Thread-Topic: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) Thread-Index: AQHOurxHSwfuKwcTskCD10bY5P6ky5nYMvXAgAA7ZYCAAThJsA== Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 14:37:57 +0000 Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E9DF0@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> References: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <52419692.7050903@cisco.com> <20130924134921.GA19673@elstar.local> <52419C92.9040807@cisco.com> <20130926132817.GB25326@elstar.local> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E9913@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <20130926215221.GA26059@elstar.local> In-Reply-To: <20130926215221.GA26059@elstar.local> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.45] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Benoit Claise , "coman@ietf.org" , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 14:38:08 -0000 Hi Juergen, I believe that what would not be useful is to be vague in the charter about= what the WG must develop as part of its 'contract' with the IESG.=20 My proposal was based on what you wrote in your previous mail:=20 > One more time: The goal here is to define the number and the semantics=20 > of the counters that need to implemented in the 6LoWPAN layer in order=20 > to enable basic monitoring and troubleshooting. The formalism we have=20 > (as a standard) for that are MIB modules. Are now saying that the goal of the WG is not to define only the 'number an= d semantics of the counters' but actually the data model itself? Then Let u= s say it. I suggest:=20 - MIB module for the counters in the 6LoWPAN layer for basic monitoring and= troubleshooting We should avoid just saying 'MIB module' because this is too vague, and als= o we should not imply that this is necessarily the full management solution= because it seems that the discussion about what is the management solution= did not yet happen in the WG.=20 Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs- > university.de] > Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 12:52 AM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: Benoit Claise; coman@ietf.org; The IESG; 6lo WG > Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource- > constrained Nodes (6lo) >=20 > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 04:21:51PM +0000, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > > > So instead of 'development of MIB modules' the charter should maybe > say 'Information Model for the counters in the 6LoWPAN layer for basic > monitoring and troubleshooting using SMIv2 MIB modules format'? > > >=20 > You can argue for this but I believe this is not useful. We have ~20 > years of MIB modules and frankly most of them (and in particular those > getting implemented) are focusing on statistics and counters. You can > now go into the direction of saying we stop doing this concrete down to > earth data modeling work and instead we do information models (in a yet > to be agree format). Is this going to help implementors? Is this going > to help people deploying stuff? >=20 > /js >=20 > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From dromasca@avaya.com Fri Sep 27 07:43:55 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EA0721F91BF; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 07:43:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.298 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.301, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ejBo2ZeY92ks; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 07:43:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AF7221F90DC; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 07:43:49 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApkKAByZRVKHCzI1/2dsb2JhbABXA4JmIThSrAKUSoEcFnSCJQEBAQEDAQEBD1wXAgICAQgNAwEEAQEBCh0HGwwLFAkIAgQBEggTB4dkAQudZZxjBI4PgQ0hFwYLgw6BAQOJAYshijaLH4FmgT6BaUE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,993,1371096000"; d="scan'208";a="25683614" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 27 Sep 2013 10:43:47 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC03.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.13]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 27 Sep 2013 10:35:12 -0400 Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC03.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.13]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:43:44 -0400 From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Ulrich Herberg , Juergen Schoenwaelder , Benoit Claise , "coman@ietf.org" , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> Thread-Topic: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) Thread-Index: AQHOurxHSwfuKwcTskCD10bY5P6ky5nYMvXAgAA7ZYCAAAQKAIABNoEA Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 14:43:44 +0000 Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E9E13@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> References: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <52419692.7050903@cisco.com> <20130924134921.GA19673@elstar.local> <52419C92.9040807@cisco.com> <20130926132817.GB25326@elstar.local> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E9913@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <20130926215221.GA26059@elstar.local> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.45] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 14:43:55 -0000 Hi Ulrich, I believe that this proposal is even more vague. According to Juergen, the = scope is specifically on a subset of the management solution specifically w= ritten in SMIv2. I believe that this subset (which may be what the operator= s need in a first phase) should be exactly described in the charter. A disc= ussion broader discussion about a full management solution, or the manageme= nt of constrained networks in general should happen separately in this WG o= r someplace else. Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Ulrich Herberg [mailto:ulrich@herberg.name] > Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 1:07 AM > To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Benoit Claise; > coman@ietf.org; The IESG; 6lo WG > Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource- > constrained Nodes (6lo) >=20 > J=FCrgen, Dan, >=20 > in order to come to a quick conclusion about this charter item, can you > both indicate whether my proposed change would be acceptable? (or > propose something better?) >=20 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > OLD > 2. Related MIB modules >=20 > NEW > 2. Related interfaces for management applications (e.g., MIB modules) > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > That would immediately cover the 6lowpan MIB, but not necessarily limit > the scope to MIB modules. >=20 > Best regards > Ulrich >=20 >=20 > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 04:21:51PM +0000, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > >> > >> So instead of 'development of MIB modules' the charter should maybe > say 'Information Model for the counters in the 6LoWPAN layer for basic > monitoring and troubleshooting using SMIv2 MIB modules format'? > >> > > > > You can argue for this but I believe this is not useful. We have ~20 > > years of MIB modules and frankly most of them (and in particular those > > getting implemented) are focusing on statistics and counters. You can > > now go into the direction of saying we stop doing this concrete down > > to earth data modeling work and instead we do information models (in a > > yet to be agree format). Is this going to help implementors? Is this > > going to help people deploying stuff? > > > > /js > > > > -- > > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 > > _______________________________________________ > > coman mailing list > > coman@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/coman From ulrich@herberg.name Fri Sep 27 10:04:10 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49F2721F99DD for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:04:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.92 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nwUWvoLbCiF1 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:04:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ve0-x231.google.com (mail-ve0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 846FC21F9C46 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:04:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ve0-f177.google.com with SMTP id db12so2223710veb.22 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:04:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pKaGAafNiQCn4iaX76atz9h9lQqTfnUAu6FhKpbvCaM=; b=i5ZM5sKv/waanPw1z4OVWJeBFGjysFQVMm3I3Wl7SsFnEDfQr0U7/MORAWJYcWpY9P 6obi/4Nfq+nFK+lwLRw5OfX8I0rrGgIpdMym3E8z6Y2XWxq7/CaFbWakoyEvrMQGnguy B3A7VBBXMQi7qtdeiXK12wqnXI//8NzJ9I8wY= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=pKaGAafNiQCn4iaX76atz9h9lQqTfnUAu6FhKpbvCaM=; b=UOwfiodOF2pMYG6Gm7lQ5bX85LqZrA32+AvxH2BFGGIaZ5LLcCtewWC+p42081b6nA NzIVHnYEsWFi57D096pbpwnX+/VLCd3kQqnnAMj61Ib70V8PXftswMnB0tDPJRcu8FnF oNoIrM7mIFbyx9cjHuMGKxQUIddb8GORzX9iq3+flGQwVlFwCmrcGYXBtCVPE6IYtKcj K+Uho6aHTLEYcZgJzF/76ZKj5OdRAB4DYf9Y/0CcaMno4wEBMXGwV1dYgIKMJEqPOJL0 RXkWICzLZwqYTMxV/jcZdAAzSwnjPqodQ2yoV7X18wLsvuIZ+DwRwJh4SFXvXC2dJylv +FEQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnBw4SwooyOwBP3USNGaBbRSrPTHbUp2nCcgJRglaKJy71DSNhvj19a+VsaPMHMXZE7/0QN MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.153.161 with SMTP id vh1mr2271433veb.29.1380301445491; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:04:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.168.8 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:04:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E9E13@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> References: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <52419692.7050903@cisco.com> <20130924134921.GA19673@elstar.local> <52419C92.9040807@cisco.com> <20130926132817.GB25326@elstar.local> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E9913@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <20130926215221.GA26059@elstar.local> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E9E13@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:04:05 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Benoit Claise , "coman@ietf.org" , Juergen Schoenwaelder , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 17:04:10 -0000 Hi Dan, the question is whether we want to limit the charter to the one single draft that is currently proposed for this item (i.e., the 6lowpan MIB module) and then require a recharter, or have a wider item (e.g., Carsten's proposal) that allows other, similar, drafts without rechartering. Say there was a new proposal for a MIB module that does not only have counters, but also allows setting some parameters. That would be out of scope when using your definition and would require a recharter. Or if there was a proposal to provide counters in the 6lowpan layer in YANG instead of SMIv2, then this would also be out of scope. Best regards Ulrich On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > Hi Ulrich, > > I believe that this proposal is even more vague. According to Juergen, th= e scope is specifically on a subset of the management solution specifically= written in SMIv2. I believe that this subset (which may be what the operat= ors need in a first phase) should be exactly described in the charter. A di= scussion broader discussion about a full management solution, or the manage= ment of constrained networks in general should happen separately in this WG= or someplace else. > > Regards, > > Dan > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ulrich Herberg [mailto:ulrich@herberg.name] >> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 1:07 AM >> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Benoit Claise; >> coman@ietf.org; The IESG; 6lo WG >> Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource- >> constrained Nodes (6lo) >> >> J=FCrgen, Dan, >> >> in order to come to a quick conclusion about this charter item, can you >> both indicate whether my proposed change would be acceptable? (or >> propose something better?) >> >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >> OLD >> 2. Related MIB modules >> >> NEW >> 2. Related interfaces for management applications (e.g., MIB modules) >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >> >> That would immediately cover the 6lowpan MIB, but not necessarily limit >> the scope to MIB modules. >> >> Best regards >> Ulrich >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder >> wrote: >> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 04:21:51PM +0000, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >> >> >> >> So instead of 'development of MIB modules' the charter should maybe >> say 'Information Model for the counters in the 6LoWPAN layer for basic >> monitoring and troubleshooting using SMIv2 MIB modules format'? >> >> >> > >> > You can argue for this but I believe this is not useful. We have ~20 >> > years of MIB modules and frankly most of them (and in particular those >> > getting implemented) are focusing on statistics and counters. You can >> > now go into the direction of saying we stop doing this concrete down >> > to earth data modeling work and instead we do information models (in a >> > yet to be agree format). Is this going to help implementors? Is this >> > going to help people deploying stuff? >> > >> > /js >> > >> > -- >> > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH >> > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany >> > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 >> > _______________________________________________ >> > coman mailing list >> > coman@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/coman From nordmark@acm.org Fri Sep 27 10:44:49 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D86E311E8101; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:44:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S9vunAEZwdZO; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:44:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from a.mail.sonic.net (a.mail.sonic.net [64.142.16.245]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC1CA21F96E4; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:44:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.154.212.78] (128-107-239-234.cisco.com [128.107.239.234]) (authenticated bits=0) by a.mail.sonic.net (8.13.8.Beta0-Sonic/8.13.7) with ESMTP id r8RHicc2014866 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:44:40 -0700 Message-ID: <5245C405.1070808@acm.org> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:44:37 -0700 From: Erik Nordmark User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Carsten Bormann References: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <52419692.7050903@cisco.com> <20130924134921.GA19673@elstar.local> <52419C92.9040807@cisco.com> <20130926132817.GB25326@elstar.local> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E9913@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <20130926215221.GA26059@elstar.local> <20130926221814.GE26059@elstar.local> <9DD59AEB-EF1B-47B2-B81C-00E38F1534F3@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: <9DD59AEB-EF1B-47B2-B81C-00E38F1534F3@tzi.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: coman@ietf.org, Juergen Schoenwaelder , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 17:44:50 -0000 On 9/26/13 11:58 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > OLD: >> 2. Related MIB modules > > Hmm: >> 2. Related interfaces for management applications (e.g., MIB modules) > > NEW: >> 2. Related MIB modules (including, where applicable, management data models using other established IETF management data modeling schemes). Carsten, *If* the WG and the IESG want the broader scope, then I'd suggest explicitly mentioning Yang models instead of the "other established ..." wording. A key question would be whether such models would cover config and operational data. A more radical approach would be to (gasp!), only do Yang even for operational data. It is easy to map Yang to a RESTful API (see draft-bierman-netconf-yang-api) which might fit nicely with CoAP. But not doing SMIv2 models might be too radical? Erik From cabo@tzi.org Fri Sep 27 11:43:29 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32A2C21F9F88; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:43:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.179 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.179 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.070, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HA6PaW+-VePf; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA66C11E8162; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:43:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8RIhCSK008873; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 20:43:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54894B0C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.75.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 243C8100; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 20:43:12 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <5245C405.1070808@acm.org> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 20:43:11 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6EDE84C3-AC13-4F84-B54F-4D789A9EA445@tzi.org> References: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <52419692.7050903@cisco.com> <20130924134921.GA19673@elstar.local> <52419C92.9040807@cisco.com> <20130926132817.GB25326@elstar.local> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E9913@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <20130926215221.GA26059@elstar.local> <20130926221814.GE26059@elstar.local> <9DD59AEB-EF1B-47B2-B81C-00E38F1534F3@tzi.org> <5245C405.1070808@acm.org> To: Erik Nordmark X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: coman@ietf.org, Juergen Schoenwaelder , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:43:29 -0000 On Sep 27, 2013, at 19:44, Erik Nordmark wrote: > On 9/26/13 11:58 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >=20 >> OLD: >>> 2. Related MIB modules >>=20 >> Hmm: >>> 2. Related interfaces for management applications (e.g., MIB = modules) >>=20 >> NEW: >>> 2. Related MIB modules (including, where applicable, management data = models using other established IETF management data modeling schemes). >=20 > Carsten, >=20 > *If* the WG and the IESG want the broader scope, then I'd suggest = explicitly mentioning Yang models instead of the "other established ..." = wording. Other management formats are out there, such as syslog, IPFIX, ... Of course, we can recharter each time one of these becomes viable for = constrained node networks. I'm not qualified to say whether YANG will be our last data modeling = scheme. It seems more rational not to wire the specific set of management = information models into the charter of one group that just happens to do = some now and then. > A key question would be whether such models would cover config and = operational data. >=20 > A more radical approach would be to (gasp!), only do Yang even for = operational data. It is easy to map Yang to a RESTful API (see = draft-bierman-netconf-yang-api) which might fit nicely with CoAP. > But not doing SMIv2 models might be too radical? I think that is really something that needs to be discussed both in this = WG and in a broader operations/management perspective. (It might be = worthwhile to add a pointer to OPSAWG here.) I'm not sure we need decisions before chartering 6lo. (I'm not even = sure we know the question we want decided.) Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From nordmark@acm.org Fri Sep 27 16:54:38 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 798FA11E80F3; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:54:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jBYPrcWodHAQ; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:54:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from b.mail.sonic.net (b.mail.sonic.net [64.142.19.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A4A411E80DF; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:54:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.154.212.78] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) (authenticated bits=0) by b.mail.sonic.net (8.13.8.Beta0-Sonic/8.13.7) with ESMTP id r8RNsSMf005157 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:54:29 -0700 Message-ID: <52461AA9.4090500@acm.org> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:54:17 -0700 From: Erik Nordmark User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Carsten Bormann References: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <52419692.7050903@cisco.com> <20130924134921.GA19673@elstar.local> <52419C92.9040807@cisco.com> <20130926132817.GB25326@elstar.local> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E9913@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <20130926215221.GA26059@elstar.local> <20130926221814.GE26059@elstar.local> <9DD59AEB-EF1B-47B2-B81C-00E38F1534F3@tzi.org> <5245C405.1070808@acm.org> <6EDE84C3-AC13-4F84-B54F-4D789A9EA445@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: <6EDE84C3-AC13-4F84-B54F-4D789A9EA445@tzi.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: coman@ietf.org, Erik Nordmark , Juergen Schoenwaelder , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 23:54:38 -0000 On 9/27/13 11:43 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > Other management formats are out there, such as syslog, IPFIX, ... But those are protocols and not data models like SMIv2 or Yang. E.g., IPFIX can *carry* structured information like SMIv2. AFAIK IETF only has those two languages for data models. > Of course, we can recharter each time one of these becomes viable for constrained node networks. > I'm not qualified to say whether YANG will be our last data modeling scheme. > It seems more rational not to wire the specific set of management information models into the charter of one group that just happens to do some now and then. It took the IETF order of 20 years to go from SMIv2 to Yang, and I sure hope 6lo is done before a third data model language is introduced in the IETF. Erik From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Mon Sep 30 05:01:34 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6215521F9609; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 05:01:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.176 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.176 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.073, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SadQmnb+fMLi; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 05:01:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 984D721F8E70; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 05:01:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.48]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D553020BFA; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:01:28 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rF2J6AHd69um; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:01:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4DD520BF8; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:01:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id F248828A1ABE; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:01:22 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:01:22 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" Message-ID: <20130930120122.GC7925@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , Benoit Claise , "coman@ietf.org" , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> References: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <52419692.7050903@cisco.com> <20130924134921.GA19673@elstar.local> <52419C92.9040807@cisco.com> <20130926132817.GB25326@elstar.local> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E9913@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <20130926215221.GA26059@elstar.local> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E9DF0@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E9DF0@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Benoit Claise , "coman@ietf.org" , The IESG , 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:01:34 -0000 On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 02:37:57PM +0000, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > Hi Juergen, > > I believe that what would not be useful is to be vague in the charter about what the WG must develop as part of its 'contract' with the IESG. > > My proposal was based on what you wrote in your previous mail: > > > One more time: The goal here is to define the number and the semantics > > of the counters that need to implemented in the 6LoWPAN layer in order > > to enable basic monitoring and troubleshooting. The formalism we have > > (as a standard) for that are MIB modules. > > Are now saying that the goal of the WG is not to define only the 'number and semantics of the counters' but actually the data model itself? Then Let us say it. I suggest: > > - MIB module for the counters in the 6LoWPAN layer for basic monitoring and troubleshooting > > We should avoid just saying 'MIB module' because this is too vague, and also we should not imply that this is necessarily the full management solution because it seems that the discussion about what is the management solution did not yet happen in the WG. > Apparently some prefer a more open ended charter while others prefer a strict charter. It will at the end be the IESG's job to define what the IESG prefers. If a strict charter is called for, then replacing Related MIB modules with MIB module for the counters in the 6LoWPAN layer for basic monitoring and troubleshooting is certainly fine with me. For those interested in a YANG model or a way to transport SMIv2 MIB defined counters over CoAP, please read Appendix A: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-6lowpan-mib-03#appendix-A Following RFC 6643, a read-only MIB modules already translates into a YANG module and this may lead to a JSON representation (although this serialization of YANG defined data trees into JSON is at this point unchartered work). /js PS: 6LoWPAN does not exist in isolation. There are further counters devices should support such as basic interface in/out counters or counters in the IPv6 layer. All these counters and their semantics are defined today in SMIv2 MIB modules. Hence, it seems quite reasonable to me to use the same formalism also for the 6LoWPAN layer. -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103