Re: [Coma] Management of Constrained Networks and Devices

Zach Shelby <zach@sensinode.com> Thu, 07 June 2012 15:07 UTC

Return-Path: <zach@sensinode.com>
X-Original-To: coma@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: coma@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B30621F88BF for <coma@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 08:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E93tOoaLA8bg for <coma@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 08:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from auth-smtp.nebula.fi (auth-smtp.nebula.fi [217.30.180.105]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DBA521F8683 for <coma@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 08:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.123.226.147] (pwlan.lfv.se [192.36.80.8] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by auth-smtp.nebula.fi (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q57F6ppZ001751; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:06:53 +0300
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Zach Shelby <zach@sensinode.com>
In-Reply-To: <83C941F7F59F3F42AC017AD1E650546206BFAF43@GDUKADH850.uk1.r-org.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 17:06:51 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <729E6954-094B-4795-BEDD-EE29D3EED2AB@sensinode.com>
References: <83C941F7F59F3F42AC017AD1E650546206BFAF43@GDUKADH850.uk1.r-org.net>
To: <Jonathan.Hansford@generaldynamics.uk.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: coma@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Coma] Management of Constrained Networks and Devices
X-BeenThere: coma@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices <coma.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/coma>, <mailto:coma-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/coma>
List-Post: <mailto:coma@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:coma-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/coma>, <mailto:coma-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 15:07:01 -0000

Jonathan,

Excellent point. It is Constrained Networks *or* Devices in practice really, as you point out there are cases when not so constrained devices are on challenging networks. Any 802.15.4 network for example falls under this category. 

So the discussion about Class 0, 1, 2 doesn't really explain the whole story. 

Zach

On Jun 7, 2012, at 5:00 PM, <Jonathan.Hansford@generaldynamics.uk.com> wrote:

> Could someone clarify something for me please?
>  
> Coma is identified as being for the Management of Constrained Networks and Devices, yet the discussion to date seems to have just focused on constrained devices. So is the “and” a boolean, meaning neither “Unconstrained Devices on Constrained Networks” nor “Constrained Devices on Unconstrained Networks” are included? For example, manpack HF radios may not be constrained devices but do exist on a constrained network and may need to be remotely managed. Should they be included?

-- 
Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd.
http://www.sensinode.com
http://zachshelby.org  - My blog "On the Internet of Things"
http://6lowpan.net - My book "6LoWPAN: The Wireless Embedded Internet"
Mobile: +358 40 7796297