Re: [6lowapp] Architecture Sketch in Charter

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Cullen Jennings

> 
> 4) The OAM folks must be thinking, so how is this different 
> from what we do every single day?
> 

I prefer the term 'OPS folks' :-) OAM is just one of the tools in our
kit. 

This is not completely new stuff for OPS. Actually we have already seen
similar work done in other SDOs for various 'low-xxx' devices attached
to networks. The typical challenges are the low resources on the device,
the mapping and sometimes optimization of protocols on specific
transports and the security model which usually offers less at the lower
level than management or OAM protocols are used to. Solutions exist and
they are not rocket science, but it is important to think about the
operational model and about the way the network will be managed from the
start. When operational and manageability aspects are left for a later
stage there is always the risk that the management solution will be to
expensive to implement and deploy, and this will impact interoperability
and scalability of the overall technology. From this point of view I am
concerned to see the item 'Mar 2012 - Ops & Management advice to IESG as
Info' showing up almost two years later than the architecture
requirements in the charter proposal. I think this item should be
synchronized or come just a short delay after the core protocol
requirements in the proposed WG scheduled.