Re: [Coma] (no subject)

Juergen Schoenwaelder <> Thu, 28 June 2012 15:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C27F121F85E4 for <>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.198
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RnGUySZB-48C for <>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7DB121F85C9 for <>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:18:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4952820C2D; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:18:52 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 41a5Jnr1VH6Q; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:18:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from elstar.local ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E341520C29; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:18:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 86B77202F439; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:18:51 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:18:51 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <>
To: Yan Wang <>
Message-ID: <20120628151851.GD56180@elstar.local>
Mail-Followup-To: Yan Wang <>,
References: <00b101cd5508$22e90bd0$68bb2370$@cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <00b101cd5508$22e90bd0$68bb2370$@cn>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [Coma] (no subject)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <>
List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:18:53 -0000

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 04:29:29PM +0800, Yan Wang wrote:
> By the way,
> mentioned
> development of a light-weight SNMP agent for resource constrained devices
> running the 6LoWPAN/RPL protocol stack.

We have implemented an SNMP stack on Contiki and we have published
details about it. I think I only very partially agree with what is
written in this section 4.5. There is also an old expired I-D that
might be relevant: <draft-hamid-6lowpan-snmp-optimizations-03.txt>

> What the relationship between coma and core, coma and lwig?

My understanding is that CORE is specifying CoAP. CoAP may be used for
management but CORE is not chartered to specifically look at this
question. LWIG is looking at coming up with general guidelines for
light-weight implementations of IP protocols and hence might include
guidelines for implementing SNMP. COMA probably can take a broader
look at what is needed and in particular what the requirements driving
things are. There is also discussion on the netconf WG list related to
constrained devices, but it is as of now not chartered work.

I assume COMA is an attempt to provide a common place to discuss the
management requirements and aspects of constrained networks and
devices instead of having discussions in several places.

Of course, as Bert Wijnen kept saying, adding a protocol with the best
intentions to replace other protocols just leads at the end to one
more protocol. If that applies to discussion lists as well, then we
just have one more. ;-)


Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <>