Re: [coman] Device Classes?

[Thomas Watteyne <[e-mail]>]

Juergen,
Thanks for the feedback.
Thomas


On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thomas,
>
> I know pretty much nothing about 6TiSCH. But you should definately
> write a complete YANG data model so that tools can be used. You need
> to distinguish configuration from state. The term "MIB" does not exist
> in the YANG world - or what is the 6top MIB? Since I do not have
> IEEE802154e, I can't really make much sense of things (descriptions
> like "Defined in IEEE802154e." don't help much).
>
> I am not understanding what 6top commands are (defined by IEEE?) and
> how they relate to the YANG fragments. Are you re-modeling command
> frames coming from IEEE? If so, what is the value of this? If there is
> value in this, why do you not use YANG defined rpcs? In short, I am
> confused what problem this document and the YANG fragment are trying
> to solve. To me, it looks like you are remodeling 6top and it is
> unclear what the value of this is. A section more clearly describing
> what the problem is to be solved and how the data model is intended
> to be used would be useful.
>
> I won't be able to join the Webex (and I have enough other things I am
> late with already...).
>
> /js
>
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 11:59:44PM -0700, Thomas Watteyne wrote:
> > Juergen,
> > The goal of this -00 is to kick things off and spark interest beyond
> > 6TiSCH, especially in COMAN. Glad to see this worked and that you agree
> > with the general direction.
> > One of 6TiSCH's milestones for August 2014 is to ask for help from "YANG
> > people". Could I ask you to provide feedback to the authors or the 6TiSCH
> > ML? The 6top authors are holding a ad-hoc webex discussion on Tuesday
> [1],
> > maybe a good first venue for feedback.
> > Please note that [2] was written specifically because there is
> > no constrained version of RESTCONF. It doesn't claim to be that, and, if
> > there were such a thing, we'd be more than happy to consider it.
> > Thomas
> >
> > [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tisch/current/msg02114.html
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> > [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 09:01:16PM -0700, Thomas Watteyne wrote:
> > > >
> > > > At 6TiSCH, we have started this work, with YANG based data model [1]
> and
> > > a
> > > > CoAP-based protocol built around that [2], any URI starting with
> "/6t" is
> > > > to monitoring and manage the 6top sublayer. I believe there would be
> a
> > > huge
> > > > benefit to having a more general solution, to which we all agree,
> i.e. a
> > > > CoAPified version of RESTCONF. COMAN looks like the right place to do
> > > this.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, what you have in [1] is not really YANG and surely not RESTCONF
> > > either. I think [1] essentially illustrates that having no agreement
> > > (or standard) how to do NM in this space is a problem. Don't get me
> > > wrong, I appreciate the direction of this work but claiming it is a
> > > YANG based data model I think is not quite right.
> > >
> > > /js
> > >
> > > --
> > > Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> > > Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
> > > Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> > >
>
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
> Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>