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

[Ulrich Herberg <[e-mail]>]

Carsten,

On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2013, at 10:33, Benoit Claise <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>  Information model for the counters in the 6LoWPAN layer for basic monitoring
>>  and troubleshooting, and a mapping to a data model (MIB module in this case)
>
> I still believe the parenthesis is a bit constraining (pun not intended), not the least because over time we will have more than one case.  (We also have at least one thing that actually is not a counter.)  More importantly, new IP-over-foos may need new counters, so limiting this to the 6LoWPAN layer means we'll need to recharter for a 6lobac MIB module etc.

I agree with you on this point. It appears to me that we narrow down
the charter to a very small part of work, and we would end up
rechartering very soon, for example if a "6lobac" module is proposed.
Also, the proposed wording only includes counters; what about
read-write objects such as flags to provision objects? Would we want
to exclude that?


>
> For the ~ 10 % of work of the WG that is concerned with defining those counters (and related bits of information), the WG will need to listen for input from the management experts.
>
> I think the decision that the current one will be a MIB module should be in the milestones, and the charter should say how we arrive at these decisions.

Yes.

Regarding Benoit's proposal of separating information and data module,
I am not sure whether this requires a separate deliverable; but as
Benoit said, this is not necessarily related, and could be a section
of, e.g., the 6lowpan MIB module. That could be part of the discussion
how to structure this once the WG is formed.

How about the following text:
- Information and data models (e.g., MIB modules) for these adaptation
layers for basic provisioning, monitoring and troubleshooting.

Best regards
Ulrich