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

[Ulrich Herberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan,

the question is whether we want to limit the charter to the one single
draft that is currently proposed for this item (i.e., the 6lowpan MIB
module) and then require a recharter, or have a wider item (e.g.,
Carsten's proposal) that allows other, similar, drafts without
rechartering. Say there was a new proposal for a MIB module that does
not only have counters, but also allows setting some parameters. That
would be out of scope when using your definition and would require a
recharter. Or if there was a proposal to provide counters in the
6lowpan layer in YANG instead of SMIv2, then this would also be out of
scope.

Best regards
Ulrich

On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Ulrich,
>
> I believe that this proposal is even more vague. According to Juergen, the scope is specifically on a subset of the management solution specifically written in SMIv2. I believe that this subset (which may be what the operators need in a first phase) should be exactly described in the charter. A discussion broader discussion about a full management solution, or the management of constrained networks in general should happen separately in this WG or someplace else.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ulrich Herberg [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 1:07 AM
>> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Benoit Claise;
>> [e-mail]; The IESG; 6lo WG
>> Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-
>> constrained Nodes (6lo)
>>
>> Jürgen, Dan,
>>
>> in order to come to a quick conclusion about this charter item, can you
>> both indicate whether my proposed change would be acceptable? (or
>> propose something better?)
>>
>> ====================
>> OLD
>> 2. Related MIB modules
>>
>> NEW
>> 2. Related interfaces for management applications (e.g., MIB modules)
>> ====================
>>
>> That would immediately cover the 6lowpan MIB, but not necessarily limit
>> the scope to MIB modules.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Ulrich
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 04:21:51PM +0000, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So instead of 'development of MIB modules' the charter should maybe
>> say 'Information Model for the counters in the 6LoWPAN layer for basic
>> monitoring and troubleshooting using SMIv2 MIB modules format'?
>> >>
>> >
>> > You can argue for this but I believe this is not useful. We have ~20
>> > years of MIB modules and frankly most of them (and in particular those
>> > getting implemented) are focusing on statistics and counters. You can
>> > now go into the direction of saying we stop doing this concrete down
>> > to earth data modeling work and instead we do information models (in a
>> > yet to be agree format). Is this going to help implementors? Is this
>> > going to help people deploying stuff?
>> >
>> > /js
>> >
>> > --
>> > Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>> > Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
>> > Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > coman mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/coman