Re: [6tisch] xxx-bootstrap

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 01 December 2016 00:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C9B7129A17 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 16:30:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.797
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FaHl_5nteJlA for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 16:30:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BE8A129400 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 16:30:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A969D200A7; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:47:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D1FD637A6; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:30:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
In-Reply-To: <efb18853e63642bc4a996dc419cd1efb@xs4all.nl>
References: <efb18853e63642bc4a996dc419cd1efb@xs4all.nl>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:30:12 -0500
Message-ID: <1645.1480552212@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/maTz6bB6jTm_L_1htjL0dPN5nj8>
Cc: 6tisch <6tisch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] xxx-bootstrap
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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" <6tisch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6tisch/>
List-Post: <mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2016 00:30:16 -0000

peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> wrote:
    > My concern is with the number of protocols that the central authority has to
    > support.

I think the Registrar/JCE will need to support three protocols:

1) a push protocol over CoAP.
2) a pull protocol (RFC7030/EST).
3) a protocol to talk to the MASA (TBD)

    > I understand that after the bad experience with CoMI, the 6tisch people do
    > not want to be dalayed again by waiting for a common approach.
    > Nevertheless, I think it is worthwhile to explore this avenue.

My impression, is that the CoMI work wasn't a bad experience, it was just too
complex to fit it into 15.4 Information Elements.  I think some of the issue
was trying to automate the YANG->CoAP mapping.  At least, that's what I observed.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-