[coman] requirement selection
peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> Wed, 01 May 2013 09:10 UTC
Return-Path: <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
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 8A07121F8E96 for <coman@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 May 2013 02:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.946
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, MANGLED_TOOL=2.3]
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 KOKf58TrYFi2 for <coman@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 May 2013 02:10:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-vbr4.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr4.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3FD921F8E7C for <coman@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 May 2013 02:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from roundcube.xs4all.nl (roundcube3.xs4all.net [194.109.20.199]) by smtp-vbr4.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r419Ajt2077891 for <coman@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 May 2013 11:10:45 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from stokcons@xs4all.nl)
Received: from a82-95-140-48.adsl.xs4all.nl ([82.95.140.48]) by roundcube.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Wed, 01 May 2013 11:10:45 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 11:10:45 +0200
From: peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
To: coman@ietf.org
Organization: vanderstok consultancy
Mail-Reply-To: <consultancy@vanderstok.org>
Message-ID: <70f8daef651e2906c73cd49d75d4a789@xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl (ERPM0CWc3xR+1rbXkH4KbJvQCXaASNSc)
User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail
X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner
Subject: [coman] requirement selection
X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
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, 01 May 2013 09:10:54 -0000
Dear coman list, In my personal notes I found that I volunteered to propose a selection of requirements from the ones proposed in the constrained-mgmt-03 draft. Below I propose a selection based on some additional grouping. Questions are welcome. I hope that other selections will be proposed in addition to mine. Peter ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________- Reading through the requirements of draft-ersue-constrained-mgmt-03 means covering a wide area of technological requirements. Making a selection of just 3-4 requirements proves to be very hard because sometimes a group of requirements exhibits very tight relations between its members and selecting one almost implies selecting all the accompanying ones as well. Another aspect is that some of the requirements seem to be covered, or are likely to be covered by existing IETF working groups. Below I will group and comment the requirements according to my own whimsy (being a fan of Dorothy Sayers). A criterion I thought helpful is selecting those requirements which can be covered by a possible COMAN working group. All comments below are motivated by my knowledge of building control and reflect my own opinion and nothing else. Group 1: Req. 4.1.001, Req. 4.1.002, Req. 4.1.004, Req. 4.1.006 are basic to any work done on management of devices for future large scale networks. Basing the management on a RESTful approach may indeed lead to a minimization of protocol code and leads to abolishment/replacement of SNMP? Group 2: Req. 4.1.003. A hierarchical approach seems the best understood way forward to manage a large set of devices and can be used as design axiom. Group 3: Req. 4.1.005, Req. 4.1.007, Req. 4.1.008, Req. 4.3.004, Req. 4.4.009, Req. 4.5.001, Req. 4.9.002 discuss auto management, auto reconfiguration and fault tolerance. They point at a future in which enough knowledge and rules exist in which auto management is possible. However, appropriate solutions may need quite a lot of application specific assumptions, and satisfying these requirements is probably best left to other Standards Developing Organizations (SDO). Group 4: Req. 4.2.005, Req. 4.2.006, Req. 4.2.007. These may be interpreted as defining a management model that provides basic facilities for low resource devices on which the SDOs can build in a later stage. This looks like work for COMAN. The design satisfying the requirements should follow the group 1 and group 2 requirements. Group 5: Req. 4.3.001, Req. 4.3.002, Req. 4.3.003, These may be interpreted as a plug and play behavior of the devices. Part of the requirements is looked after by Homenet wg and the new to start DNSext wg. Additional work will need to be defined on top of Homenet and DNSext results. In particular it is interesting that clients can automatically bind to servers at start-up and possibly during operation. Group 6: Req. 4.4.001 - Req. 4.4.008, Req. 4.4.011, and Req. 4.4.012, and Req. 4.7.001-4.7.004. concern monitoring and notification mechanisms which can be specified in COMAN using the results of group 4. SDOs can define their own functions on top. Group 7: Req. 4.6.001- 4.6.004, Req. 4.10.004 all concern security aspects which are the concern of future security wgs beyond TLS. Already efforts have started in lwig and an initiative exists to start a common Sec and APPS area spin-out. Group 8: Req. 4.8.001 The requirement for a SW update for a group devices stands on its own and is indeed wanted. Up till now these facilities are specified by SDOs in a rather ad-hoc manner. Group 9: Req. 4.9.001, 4.9.003, 4.10.001 – 4.10.003 concern reliable transport, congestion avoidance, time aspects, etc. Specifying these requirements correctly taking into account the relevant operational boundary conditions would be a major step forward from the current clash of opinions and initiatives. Does not look like a COMAN subject. Group 10: Req. 4.2.001 - 4.2.004, Req. 4.11.001, Req. 4.11.002 concern modular and lean implementation and are probably best served by lwig In conclusion: groups 4 and 5 requirements, supported by group 1 and 2 requirements, are for me the most opportune ones in connection to the management of low resource devices in large scale networks. My hope is that it leads to ONE secure RESTful protocol that supports boot strapping, configuration of devices, followed by binding of clients to servers without operator intervention. Automating of the configuration and reconfiguration, group 3, is interesting but may rely on a large number of application dependent characteristics and objectives. Gap analysis: plug and play and management is done by SDOs for different application areas, often with much functional overlap but without common technical solutions apart from the reliance on multicasting techniques. A new common solution supported by IETF is needed given the large scale networks composed of low-cost IP based devices. Low resource devices may profit from one RESTful protocol with one security solution that is the same for the applications as for the management. Provisioning of multiple management solutions based on different protocols like snmp, http, and other protocols will need too much memory for storage of code. The management based on MIBs misses the modeling flexibility needed by future solutions which support the auto-management of the devices. -- Peter van der Stok mailto: consultancy@vanderstok.org www: www.vanderstok.org tel NL: +31(0)492474673 F: +33(0)966015248
- [coman] requirement selection peter van der Stok