[Coma] Possible topics?

Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> Thu, 07 June 2012 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ulrich@herberg.name>
X-Original-To: coma@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: coma@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A65921F8625 for <coma@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 14:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.55
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.427, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VoOxAFwuqkEY for <coma@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 14:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCCAE21F861E for <coma@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 14:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhq56 with SMTP id 56so934649yhq.31 for <coma@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 14:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=V4PhLCeks/XdMeJBYuz1erdmsqd4+/VWF4FACA32SeI=; b=AxNGNpqI2OgDg2N+NVILUJSWsKeXIlvqNash+Er8nXxMKs87DSJCb4PZSsv65HAMQP 81s/XXYjHdkKUgJFHQxMXTYJzLODSPiThyN02xrAmEw0RiES1puIqNxhq+gZdoLD4zYe JJK3bXsRIdMJU8jIaBtmDIl3p/8gro7D8IZQ0=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=V4PhLCeks/XdMeJBYuz1erdmsqd4+/VWF4FACA32SeI=; b=dc7y962u1gfznGPhd3pxDz8DWDYZ3CyKjyqM6FRk3CrOE4bgkqiLC8wWYhA5plCAN6 qNI+rM6y/3FBTj8wB2d3xaB/CJnPkiVwirzs5u9kewn2rfWIa5euJaAesh760Sq/1eW3 YZZsT0ZJCXT62Jr8BsRzv1CuPS+SKqcQYe2KDviPOhQ++pqXKxew+wciGW6AJkJGe6b0 /6esKSDZaSTIxylndhHSUZR6NTSxyTrWhH1e1PDzd1xRj/h4Rgq9LpCvOnrcMeXQnBD4 tr4owsOfXajJhCQm0gtHXGhjkPFRHxl3DhtyOay2KXAf5p4YnSUnQRakBxoPxanJwKpT zaGA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id d50mr3413109yhl.48.1339104408341; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 14:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 14:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 14:26:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAK=bVC8_KRo5uawz3VxCpF0mqEH9s=GbG6ZRdWzhETeyZwDtCA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
To: coma@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlk9/p8dXfAF1CSvoqGk99mp7TJJgP8Pgn9lFIq06kJodk5rz9HSjQU0FCGlgFi85Kz1w70
Subject: [Coma] Possible topics?
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 21:26:50 -0000


I just discovered this mailing list. Some aspects I have in mind about
the topic of managing constrained devices and networks:

- Do we actually manage single devices or whole networks (or groups of
devices)? At least in MANETs, it may be of equal interest to monitor
(and manage) the performance of a whole network, rather than just a
single router.
- Should we support a distributed approach or a enforce a centralized
NMS? (or support both modes of operation?)
- Which transport protocols do we want to use? TCP/UDP or something like COAP?
- Do we need efficient, reliable multicast (like NORM, but
lightweight) to distribute control traffic more efficiently?
- Can we provide sufficient levels of security without putting too
much burden on constrained devices? Which authentication modes do we
- Should there be a proxy functionality like RMON (or something like
the currently developed REPORT-MIB in MANET), in order to record
performance related values locally and then send to a NMS later?
- Will there be a mapping to existing management protocols like SNMP
for border gateways?
- Is there any assumption for this work about the reliability of the
channel, the kind of the link layer (e.g., wireless/wired), mobility
etc? Or is the only assumption that the devices are "constrained" (in
terms of memory? CPU? network connection?)


[Coma] Subject: New Non-WG Mailing List: coma -- Management of
Constrained Networks and Devices

    From: IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat at ietf.org>
    To: IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce at ietf.org>
    Cc: bclaise at cisco.com, coma at ietf.org
    Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 10:39:36 -0700
    List-id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices <coma.ietf.org>

A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.

List address: coma at ietf.org
Archive:  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/coma/
To subscribe:  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/coma

Purpose: This list is for the discussion related to the management of
constrained networks and devices. The IETF so far has not developed
specific technologies for the management of constrained networks.
There is a need to
understand the requirements for the management of such a constrained
network and its devices.

For additional information, please contact the list administrators.