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

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 10:33:15AM +0200, Benoit Claise wrote:
> 
> Why?
> - SNMP being the way to monitor counters on a constrained node now,
> I could buy that!
> However, just telling "MIB modules" in the charter might give the
> wrong impression that SNMP is the only way to manage a constrained
> node. We don't know the answer at this point in time (at least, I
> don't)
>
> - We really need to make the difference between information model
> and data model (RFC 3444)
> Mapping from an information model to a different data model/protocol
> is the right way to go
> 
> Notes:
> - the distinction between information model and data model doesn't
> imply that we need to have two deliverables.
> - I'm in line with Dan regarding this comment "a separate discussion
> (here or some place else) about the broader aspects of management of
> resource-constrained nodes. "  This discussion should happen
> sometime, somewhere.

It might help to look at what we are talking about here. The 'information
model' really is this Case Diagram:

                             IPv6 layer
                         ^               v
     InDelivers         -+-             -+-       OutRequests
                         |               |
     InDiscards       <--+               |
                         |               |
     InCompOKs       .-->|               |-->.    OutCompReqds
     InCompFails  <--|   |               |   +--> OutCompFails
     InCompReqds     `<--+               +<--'    OutCompOKs
                         |               |
                         |               +-->.    OutFragReqds
     InReasmOKs      .-->|               |   +--> OutFragFails
     InReasmFails <--|   |               |  -+-   OutFragOKs
     InReasmReqds    `<--+               +<--'    OutFragCreates
                         |               |
                         |               |
     InMeshDelivers      |<--.           |
     InMeshForwds        |   |-->.       |
     InMeshReceives      +-->'   |       |
                         |       +-->    |        OutMeshHopLimitExceeds
                         |       +-->    |        OutMeshNoRoutes
                         |       |       |
                         |       |   .<--+        OutMeshRequests
                         |       `-->|   |        OutMeshForwds
                         |           `-->|        OutMeshTransmits
                         |               |
     InHdrErrors      <--+               +-->     OutDiscards
                         |               |
     InReceives         -+-             -+-       OutTransmits
                         ^               v
                          interface layer

In the past, we simply recoded such things in MIB modules in the
'Overview' section and we were done.

So is your proposal that we s/Overview/Information Model/ ? Well,
if that is what is being called for...

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>