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

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-
> university.de]
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 3:01 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: Benoit Claise; [e-mail]; The IESG; 6lo WG
> Subject: Re: [6lo] [coman] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-
> constrained Nodes (6lo)
> 
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 02:37:57PM +0000, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> 
> Apparently some prefer a more open ended charter while others prefer a
> strict charter. It will at the end be the IESG's job to define what the
> IESG prefers.
> 
> If a strict charter is called for, then replacing
> 
>   Related MIB modules
> 
> with
> 
>   MIB module for the counters in the 6LoWPAN layer for basic monitoring
>   and troubleshooting
> 
> is certainly fine with me.
> 
> For those interested in a YANG model or a way to transport SMIv2 MIB
> defined counters over CoAP, please read Appendix A:
> 
>   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-6lowpan-mib-03#appendix-A
> 
> Following RFC 6643, a read-only MIB modules already translates into a
> YANG module and this may lead to a JSON representation (although this
> serialization of YANG defined data trees into JSON is at this point
> unchartered work).
> 
> /js
> 
> PS: 6LoWPAN does not exist in isolation. There are further counters
>     devices should support such as basic interface in/out counters or
>     counters in the IPv6 layer. All these counters and their semantics
>     are defined today in SMIv2 MIB modules. Hence, it seems quite
>     reasonable to me to use the same formalism also for the 6LoWPAN
>     layer.
> 

[[DR]] I agree with the argument made by Juergen in the PS. My personal preference is for a 'strict' charter wording for this WG for the development of the MIB module and a separate discussion (here or some place else) about the broader aspects of management of resource-constrained nodes. 

Regards,

Dan