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

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 27, 2013, at 19:44, Erik Nordmark <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 9/26/13 11:58 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> 
>> OLD:
>>> 2. Related MIB modules
>> 
>> Hmm:
>>> 2. Related interfaces for management applications (e.g., MIB modules)
>> 
>> NEW:
>>> 2. Related MIB modules (including, where applicable, management data models using other established IETF management data modeling schemes).
> 
> Carsten,
> 
> *If* the WG and the IESG want the broader scope, then I'd suggest explicitly mentioning Yang models instead of the "other established ..." wording.

Other management formats are out there, such as syslog, IPFIX, ...
Of course, we can recharter each time one of these becomes viable for constrained node networks.
I'm not qualified to say whether YANG will be our last data modeling scheme.
It seems more rational not to wire the specific set of management information models into the charter of one group that just happens to do some now and then.

> A key question would be whether such models would cover config and operational data.
> 
> A more radical approach would be to (gasp!), only do Yang even for operational data. It is easy to map Yang to a RESTful API (see draft-bierman-netconf-yang-api) which might fit nicely with CoAP.
> But not doing SMIv2 models might be too radical?

I think that is really something that needs to be discussed both in this WG and in a broader operations/management perspective.  (It might be worthwhile to add a pointer to OPSAWG here.)
I'm not sure we need decisions before chartering 6lo.  (I'm not even sure we know the question we want decided.)

Grüße, Carsten