Re: [coman] Device Classes?

[Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carsten.


On 04/04/2014 02:08 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 04 Apr 2014, at 13:32, Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> For me the software update mechanism is extremely important since it is
>> not just a way to replace the entire firmware but also to provision
>> certain protocol parameters.
> 
> Provisioning protocol parameters is one CoAP PUT to the right resource.  Cf. OMA LWM2M.
> (They also do define a firmware update mechanism, but that seems to presume the device has space for a complete firmware image.)

That is exactly the question I raised when it comes to network management.

I don't understand what network management protocol add beyond what is
already there with CoAP.

Of course, you could replace CoAP entirely with SNMP (as Juergen had
suggested).


> 
> Replacing the software that is running during the software update is the fun part, and that is somewhat expensive to support (add the requirement for a rollback capability for a realistic scenario).
> 
Sure. Software updates are not fun.

>> You also cannot omit EAP/PANA from that list since many devices will
>> likely need to have a way to authenticate to the network.
> 
> If you want to do this the SEP2.0 way, you need EAP/PANA.
> (SEP2.0 is targeting class-2+, not class-1.)

With devices that are in direct connection with each other you could
argue that there is no need for DTLS and alike since you will have to
deal with the pairing procedure at the lower layer. Many devices fall
into that category.

If that's not the case I believe you cannot assume that no network
access authentication will be needed.

Ciao
Hannes


> 
> Grüße, Carsten
>