Re: [alto] [manet] Request for feedback

Hi All,

I'm a big fan of this kind of thing in principle, and I like the use of 
JSON, but I worry there is some cross-over with the work that is 
happening in the ALTO group (I have cc'd them), and some of the work in 
with RESTCONF from the NETCONF people (I'm less up to speed with what 
they are doing).

Does anyone from the ALTO group have any opinions?

Rick

On 13/09/15 14:06, Henning Rogge wrote:
> Hi everyone...
>
> I was involved in the discussions about NetJSON, have done a NetJSON
> implementation for Olsrd2 and played a bit with it.
>
> I think this could be very useful for the MANET group... yes, we can
> do everything we can do with NetJSON with SNMP and the corresponding
> mibs...
>
> but of course it would take weeks to get something complicated right
> and it would be protocol specific.
>
> It took me a two days and a few hundred lines of Javascript (and a
> javascript graph API) to just build a live monitoring webpage for
> olsrd2 that updates through XMLRPC. It was fun to do.
>
>
> I think we should look into NetJSON, make sure with some suggestion it
> fits both reactive and proactive protocols and standardize it.
>
> Henning Rogge
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 3:55 PM, L. Aaron Kaplan <aaron@lo-res.org> wrote:
>> Hi MANET WG,
>>
>>
>> We would like to draw your attention to an upcoming new document called "netJSON" and ask for your feedback.
>>
>> TL;DR:  go to http://netjson.org
>>
>>
>>
>> Background: Henning and me are both in an EU FP7 project (called CONFINE). This gives us some financial means to focus on some projects. One of these projects is what I usually call a "common node DB". The idea being that every (community) wireless (mesh) network loves to invent its own registry (LIR) database. There nodes and different devices and their ownership are documented . Also on how to reach the other owner. In essence, it's a necessity for us to have such a thing for maintaining IP address assignments.
>> Often these node DBs don't end with IP address assignment functionalities: they often include interesting network link planning features, line of sight calculations, firmware config generation tools and of course a lot of monitoring tools.
>>
>>
>> Right now the situation is that every (community) network loves to invent its own node DB. So there is no standard. Hence we came together and started to define a **simple** JSON based format for describing our networks. This shall not replace SNMP nor netconf. It's a simple (as opposed to *S*nmp) format definition. Very flexible, and people essentially can opt in to what parts of it they want to support.
>>
>> Please note that this has a different focus than netconf. Also, it is not SNMP. We looked at those.
>>
>> The focus of that format is to describe mesh networks. Wireless (containing wired links for sure) mesh networks.
>>
>>
>> We also made a first RFC-ish draft: http://netjson.org/rfc.html
>>
>>
>> The source code can be seen here: https://github.com/interop-dev/netjson
>> (feel free to send pull requests via github)
>>
>> Ultimately, the goal will be to have interoperable mesh network descriptions and thus being able to separate the coding work amongst different (community) networks (or other players in this field).
>>
>>
>> Let us know, what you think. Thanks!
>> Aaron.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list
>> manet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>