Re: [6tisch] information model or data model in the new charter

I agree Qin;

“Produce an Information Model containing the management requirements
of a 6TiSCH node. A data model mapping for an existing protocol (such as Concise
Binary Object Representation (CBOR) over the Constrained Application …”

Would become
“Produce a Data Model expressed in Yand and enabling the management
of the 6top sublayer. A mapping for an existing protocol (such as Concise
Binary Object Representation (CBOR) over the Constrained Application …
“

Note that I reduced the scope of the data model to the 6ttop piece.

Is that what we want ?

Pascal

From: Qin Wang [mailto:qinwang6top@yahoo.com]
Sent: vendredi 29 janvier 2016 16:49
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>; 6tisch@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6tisch] information model or data model in the new charter

Hi Brain, Pascal and all,

I think both what we actually did in the current 6top-interface draft, and what we are going to redo as Thomas and Xavi suggested in the last Webex, are Yang date model of 6top, instead of information model. Thus, I think we need to re-word the Charter accordingly. Make sense?

In addition, the attached file presents clear definition on both interface model and Yang model.

Thanks
Qin

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 2:48 PM, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net<mailto:brian@innovationslab.net>> wrote:

Hi Pascal,

On 1/27/16 2:38 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Hello Brian and Qin:
>
> We discussed that at the time of the first charter, using RFC 3444 as
> our reference; it is my understanding that we aimed the 6top
> interface document
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-interface at
> providing a Yang Data model to manage the 6top layer in a device. It
> is my understanding that some form of information model in natural
> language would be present in the 6top draft, but my reading of the
> 6top interface is that there is some degree of information model
> there too, that explains the data model. If so, is that a problem?

I don't think the problem is in a *document*. Benoit is questioning the
wording of the proposed charter.  I would suggest reviewing his comments
in light of the current wording of the new charter text.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-6tisch/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-6tisch/ballot/#benoit-claise

Regards,

Brian

>
> Cheers,
>
> Pascal
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: 6tisch
>> [mailto:6tisch-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:6tisch-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman Sent:
>> lundi 25 janvier 2016 14:11 To: 6tisch@ietf.org<mailto:6tisch@ietf.org> Subject: Re:
>> [6tisch] information model or data model in the new charter
>>
>> Hi Qin,
>>
>> On 1/22/16 3:30 PM, Qin Wang wrote:
>>> Dear all, In today's Webex meeting, we were talking about the
>>> feedback from Bonoit about the new Charter, see [6tisch] Benoit
>>> Claise's No Objection on charter-ietf-6tisch-01-00: (with
>>> COMMENT), and want to continue the discussion in the ML. The
>>> question is what is exactly we want to do with Yang model, and
>>> how to make the paragraph about Yang model in the new Charter
>>> more accurate. Any comments and suggestion is welcome. ThanksQin
>>>
>>
>> This issue needs to get resolved before I will release the charter
>> for external review. Benoit's point illustrated an issue in the
>> charter where it is not clear as to whether the WG is interested in
>> an information model or a data model.
>>
>> Regards, Brian

_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
6tisch@ietf.org<mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch