Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo)

[Ulrich Herberg <[e-mail]>]

One additional comment to what Samita said:

<snip>
> That's actually my point. Should we focus on developing a MIB module, taking for granting that SNMP is THE way to manage constrained nodes? Or should we ask ourselves: based on the collected management requirements, let's see what is more appropriate?
> You know, like I2RS is currently doing, instead of jumping to NETCONF/YANG directly because it seemed like the solution.
>
>
> [SC>] We should discuss the scope of  management interfaces work in the wg meeting. Restricting to SNMP is certainly has its limitations.  Management configuration and reporting parameters requirements and Interfaces are important.  Personally, I'm in favor of a common architecture for the management infrastructure as much as possible for the 6lo devices and then leave hooks for L2-technology specific information.


UH> We had some discussion at the unofficial COMAN meeting last IETF
where agreed that MIBs are not necessarily tied to SNMP (although that
is currently the case). Peter van der Stok offered to work on a draft
that uses COAP for accessing a MIB module. I am not sure about the
status of that draft, but this is just to say that an interface is not
necessarily identical with the protocol accessing that interface.

Regards
Ulrich