IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Fri, 27 September 2013 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.com>
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 8A57321F9E00; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 07:38:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.29
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.309, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 N7P5mwZI7OEZ; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 07:38:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C8E821F9E43; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 07:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApkKAKyWRVKHCzI1/2dsb2JhbABXA4JmIThSrAKUSoEcFnSCJQEBAQECARIoPwUHAgICAQgNAQIBBAEBAQoUCQcbFxQJCAIEDgUIEweHXgYBnWqcYQSOFIEIIRAHBguDDoEBA5QihQyFKosfgWaBPoFxOQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,993,1371096000"; d="scan'208";a="25682753"
Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 27 Sep 2013 10:38:00 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC04.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.14]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 27 Sep 2013 10:29:26 -0400
Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC04.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.14]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:37:57 +0200
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Thread-Topic: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo)
Thread-Index: AQHOurxHSwfuKwcTskCD10bY5P6ky5nYMvXAgAA7ZYCAAThJsA==
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 14:37:57 +0000
Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E9DF0@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
References: <20130923180202.32168.94377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E75E5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <52419692.7050903@cisco.com> <20130924134921.GA19673@elstar.local> <52419C92.9040807@cisco.com> <20130926132817.GB25326@elstar.local> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E9913@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <20130926215221.GA26059@elstar.local>
In-Reply-To: <20130926215221.GA26059@elstar.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.45]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "coman@ietf.org" <coman@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, 6lo WG <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo)
X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 14:38:08 -0000

Hi Juergen,

I believe that what would not be useful is to be vague in the charter about what the WG must develop as part of its 'contract' with the IESG. 

My proposal was based on what you wrote in your previous mail: 

> One more time: The goal here is to define the number and the semantics 
> of the counters that need to implemented in the 6LoWPAN layer in order 
> to enable basic monitoring and troubleshooting. The formalism we have 
> (as a standard) for that are MIB modules.

Are now saying that the goal of the WG is not to define only the 'number and semantics of the counters' but actually the data model itself? Then Let us say it. I suggest: 

- MIB module for the counters in the 6LoWPAN layer for basic monitoring and troubleshooting

We should avoid just saying 'MIB module' because this is too vague, and also we should not imply that this is necessarily the full management solution because it seems that the discussion about what is the management solution did not yet happen in the WG. 

Regards,

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-
> university.de]
> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 12:52 AM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: Benoit Claise; coman@ietf.org; The IESG; 6lo WG
> Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-
> constrained Nodes (6lo)
> 
> 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: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email