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

[Samita Chakrabarti <[e-mail]>]

Hi Juergen,

Please see below inline.

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 3:18 PM
To: Ulrich Herberg
Cc: Benoit Claise; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [e-mail]; The IESG; 6lo WG
Subject: Re: [6lo] [coman] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo)

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 03:06:48PM -0700, Ulrich Herberg wrote:
> 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.
> 

This clearly is at the political layer. Within the IETF, we have SMIv2 to write MIB modules (~20 years of experience) and YANG to write YANG modules (~2 (?) years of experience). Do you want an open ended charter or something concrete? In fact, I would argue that it is not 6lo's charter item to invent how contrained networks are managed nor is it their charter to define yet another data modeling approach.
[SC>] 
[SC>] 

MIB models might be ~20 years old but 6lo or 6Lowpan did not exist then.
The above proposed change in the charter should cover MIB modules as well as other new approaches that are applicable for IOT devices and controllers.
I am not sure why 6lo should restrict itself to MIB only when the others in the industry are considering different types of modeling and interfaces.
I think the information model definition is a fine idea for applying to different types of implementations.

Thanks,
-Samita