Re: [Coma] (no subject)

Dear Mehmet and Juergen,
Thank you for your replies. Service management is really more suitable to
put in the use case.
There are many kinds of constraint networks and devices, as well as many
kinds of existing protocols for network management. I am still not quite
clear about the management requirements. Maybe we should propose several use
cases of different kinds of networks. It is good to make clear about their
common requirements and individual requirements. 

Best wishes,
Yan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: coma-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:coma-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 5:15 PM
> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Yan Wang
> Cc: coma@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Coma] (no subject)
> 
> Hi Yan,
> 
> service management is a huge topic area and I assume we cannot cover it
> exhaustively. IMO service management should be discussed as part of the
use
> cases. Based on this we need to understand the requirements on the
> management of networks with constrained devices.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mehmet
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: coma-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:coma-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of ext
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:19 PM
> > To: Yan Wang
> > Cc: coma@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Coma] (no subject)
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 04:29:29PM +0800, Yan Wang wrote:
> >
> > > By the way,
> > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-guidance-00#section-4.5
> 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. ;-)
> >
> > /js
> >
> > --
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> > Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
> > Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Coma mailing list
> > Coma@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/coma
> _______________________________________________
> Coma mailing list
> Coma@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/coma