[coman] Review of draft-ersue-constrained-mgmt-03
"Sehgal, Anuj" <s.anuj@jacobs-university.de> Wed, 10 April 2013 22:33 UTC
Return-Path: <s.anuj@jacobs-university.de>
X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35B8521F8A68 for <coman@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tLnql0-iQV0x for <coman@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155ED21F8A66 for <coman@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.49]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFD8220BDA for <coman@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 00:33:49 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p0K1FO7lDXvU for <coman@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 00:33:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from exchange.jacobs-university.de (unknown [10.70.0.154]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74B78209D7 for <coman@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 00:33:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from SXCHMB01.jacobs.jacobs-university.de ([fe80::c1f:c30f:99ac:df0c]) by SHUBCAS04.jacobs.jacobs-university.de ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 00:33:38 +0200
From: "Sehgal, Anuj" <s.anuj@jacobs-university.de>
To: "<coman@ietf.org>" <coman@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ersue-constrained-mgmt-03
Thread-Index: AQHONjtx2uY+hU+Cw0ySjFE29DCKDw==
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 22:33:36 +0000
Message-ID: <6CF8F4DE-F136-4995-82CF-35FD7B76B66C@jacobs-university.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [217.239.27.46]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <A3467C9CED04A446ADEDA8D84E069395@jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [coman] Review of draft-ersue-constrained-mgmt-03
X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices <coman.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/coman>, <mailto:coman-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/coman>
List-Post: <mailto:coman@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:coman-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/coman>, <mailto:coman-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 22:33:52 -0000
Hi, After reading draft-ersue-constrained-mgmt-03 there are a few questions that came up in my mind. There also some general editorial things I would like to point out, and as such, I will break up the email into two sections for readability. 1. Questions Regarding draft-ersue-constrained-mgmt-03 a. From reading the document, it is not completely clear whether end-to-end IP connectivity is assumed in all cases? Or is it possible that the gateways in between act as translators for different protocols? In general there seems to be an implied understanding that end-to-end IP connectivity exists, but it might be useful to make this clear in the document. b. Section 1.3 focuses on the class of networks that are within the scope of this document but the terminology defined here (CN0, CN1, etc.) is not used elsewhere in the document. Since it is not used in the document, is it still relevant? Maybe it is better to just remove this from the document? c. It might be best to check all the terminology against the LWIG document once since things could have changed there and to make sure that all the terminologies are still relevant. d. Section 2 makes a claim that "the current management protocols seem to be too heavyweight compared to the capabilities the constrained devices". It would seem that at least SNMPv1 performs decently within the resource constraints of the environment. As such, either this needs a reference to solidify this position or needs to be expanded in order to make it clear that this not necessarily a resource usage issue but more of an issue related to the fact that the IoT protocol stack (e.g. CoAP) is what should be/people like to reuse in this environment for management and application. e. The Industrial Application examples provided in Section 3.3 may not be the best ones. Things like centralized control of energy, HVAC, lighting and access control can also be categorized under Home Automation, Building Automation or Energy Management. On the other hand use cases like manufacturing, assembly lines and etc. do fit well within this section. It would seem that this section needs some examples to be changed and improved. f. Currently there is a big intersect between the Industrial Application, Home Automation and Building Automation use cases. The examples and text in these sections needs to be clarified in order to make sure that the differences between these closely related use cases is clear to the reader. g. In Section 3.5 it is stated that "Contrary to home automation in building management all devices are known to a set of commissioning tools and a data storage...". I suggest changing the language a little bit to say that this is expected, rather than always being the ground truth. While normally assets might be tightly managed in such an environment, it may not necessarily be so. Maybe writing, "Contrary to home automation in building management all devices are expected to be managed assets, and as such, known to a set of commissioning tools and a data storage...". h. The whole use case of Mobile Applications in Section 3.10 seems to be not really a use case, but rather special cases related to access technologies. All the issues discussed here seem to be use case issues that should be part of other use case sections. It might be better to merge this section into the previous sections. i. Section 3.12, MANET Concept of Operations (CONOPS) in Military, is considerably more detailed than any of the other use case sections. Furthermore, it would likely make more sense to shift the focus of this use case from MANET and CONOPS to purely military applications, since the use case here is not specifically MANETs, but rather the special conditions that come with military operations. Also, in light of increased international military unit cooperation it makes even more sense to have a section focusing specifically on military applications since in these scenarios it is quite likely that multiple different standards, best practices and implementation approaches may conflict/contradict, thereby needing special management of such networks. j. It is stated in Section 4 that the document does not recommend the realization of a profile of requirements. What does "profile of requirements" refer to? This is quite unclear because a list of requirements, that seem to be a profile, is present in the document as well. k. From reading the document it is quite unclear what Functional Requirement, Non-Functional Requirement and Design Constraint exactly mean. For example, Requirement 4.1.004 is marked as non-functional, however, it could be argued that due to the resource constraints on devices, minimizing state maintained on them should be a functional requirement, or even a design constraint since it is forced by the platform. An explicit clarification between these requirement types in the document would be useful. l. After reading Requirement 4.3.001, I have the feeling that using Mandatory and Optional as priorities is likely not appropriate. Making something mandatory makes it an absolute requirement, and in case of constrained devices making self-configuration mandatory for C0 and C1 devices might be overkill. As such, I propose that the terminology for priorities be changed to using "High, Medium and Low" since that more accurately represents the importance of implementing a requirement. m. Requirement 4.10.002, regarding reliable unicast transport has a title that is a bit ambiguous. Just by reading the title an impression is had that the requirement might apply to the transport protocol, which would make CoAP, for example, not usable. However, reading the description provides a bit of inferred clarity that reliability applies to the message transport, and not the transport protocol. As such, I suggest replacing the title with the current description, which is quite short; it would then make sense to have a more precise and clearly worded description, which would not lead to this ambiguity or misinterpretation. 2. Editorial Issues a. In Section 1.6, the statement, "Faults in network operation including hardware and software errors, failures detected by the transport protocol and other self-monitoring mechanisms can be used to provide fault tolerance.", is unclear. This needs to be reworded to clearly explain the goal. b. In Section 2, the paragraph starting with, "The terminology for the "Internet of Things" is still nascent, and...", is unclear and not easy to read. Specifically, the second sentence, "In this context, we need to differentiate between...", does not make sense and when taken in context of the first one, it is plain confusing. c. The statement, "Hence, the management of a network with constrained devices might...", in Section 2 needs to be reworded as it is grammatically incorrect. If I find more issues upon reading the document again, I shall post them to the mailing list as well. Warm regards, Anuj Sehgal
- [coman] Review of draft-ersue-constrained-mgmt-03 Sehgal, Anuj
- Re: [coman] Review of draft-ersue-constrained-mgm… Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)