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

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <> Fri, 29 January 2016 16:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AADE1A8785 for <>; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 08:50:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ojwWvsiWu369 for <>; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 08:50:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33BA61A8784 for <>; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 08:50:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=22416; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1454086209; x=1455295809; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=9I8easvHMYOjKwS6ZZa9UvvdHgyPK2lvxfPQDaWpdPc=; b=a5EafHf0WwyvFPrQx+eejiFHnuCo3VqFPKXKqLLl9nM3CqIBR2uHxod9 dvCF4eM2XvkMjSGojMyW+SleC3oC0ob2c3kPbOGHPFaqfu917e8GJ7PgZ Lrcuc/fpV4L87Au3KR8kRC0XkfFRTv673fpn961ROFEPktHlKAkRvQA+y Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D4AQDUl6tW/5RdJa1egm5MUm0GiFKhK?= =?us-ascii?q?JAQAQ2BYxgBC4UhSgIcgRc4FAEBAQEBAQGBCoRBAQEBAwEBAQEgCkEXBAIBBgI?= =?us-ascii?q?RBAEBAScDAgICJQsTAQkIAgQBEgiHfgMKCA6UIZ0TjnEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQERBIYNhDeCN4IoCYJKgToFhhMMkE8BhUaGF4FmjniGfYc/AR4BAUK?= =?us-ascii?q?CAhmBUWqIAXwBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,365,1449532800"; d="scan'208,217";a="232752336"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Jan 2016 16:50:08 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u0TGo8Md013090 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 29 Jan 2016 16:50:08 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 10:50:07 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 10:50:07 -0600
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <>
To: Qin Wang <>, Brian Haberman <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [6tisch] information model or data model in the new charter
Thread-Index: AQHRWqyQ/qClieClG0CxjeIXnv96TZ8Ss+og
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 16:50:04 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 16:49:59 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_558bea388584432ba3ffe747c9fada12XCHRCD001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] information model or data model in the new charter
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 16:50:13 -0000

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 ?


From: Qin Wang []
Sent: vendredi 29 janvier 2016 16:49
To: Brian Haberman <>et>; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <>om>;
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.


On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 2:48 PM, Brian Haberman <<>> 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
> 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.



> Cheers,
> Pascal
>> -----Original Message----- From: 6tisch
>> [<>] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman Sent:
>> lundi 25 janvier 2016 14:11 To:<> 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<>