Re: [coman] are we there yet?

Just to be short (the long version can be discussed in the hallway):

- We are not going to reinvent CoAP. 
- Though I don't believe OMA LwM2M satisfies the use cases and requirements we have.

Cheers, 
Mehmet 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Zach Shelby [mailto:zach@sensinode.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:37 AM
> To: Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
> Cc: coman@ietf.org; Michael Richardson
> Subject: Re: [coman] are we there yet?
> 
> Hi Mehmet,
> 
> I'll be happy to compare this to the requirements in the Coman draft. Will report back
> when I am done.
> 
> We don't know what the point is yet, just letting you know there is work being done in
> this space that is used for solving the same problem and already using IETF protocols.
> As a vendor making IoT systems with very embedded devices, I can say one thing for
> sure, we will not be using multiple protocols to do Device Management, Network
> Management and Application Data. These need to be enabled using the same set of
> security and transfer protocols, and ideally using the same interfaces and data models
> as much as possible.
> 
> For sure the IETF has a role to play in making great MIBs for managing networks and
> protocols. We just need to figure out how to make those MIBs available for use over a
> general IoT protocol that we already would be using for other purposes on a device.
> And we also need to align that with the other standards activities happening in this
> space (OMA, OneM2M etc.). For instance, I would love to be able to use the 6LoWPAN
> and RPL MIBs that Juergen has created over CoAP.
> 
> So I guess to be perfectly blunt, creating a new protocol is a non-starter for COMAN.
> But at the same time I am sure there are lots of things we can do on top of existing
> protocols and systems. We just need to figure out what the gaps are.
> 
> Regards,
> Zach
> 
> On Mar 12, 2013, at 5:47 PM, "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)"
> <mehmet.ersue@nsn.com> wrote:
> 
> > I am not sure I get the point.
> >
> > Is it the proposal that we should use OMA LwM2M for the purpose of Coman, or is it
> meant that more than what OMA LwM2M specifies is not needed?
> >
> > Ideally, we need to support all management dimensions on the one side: the
> management protocol, the information model and the necessary data models, and an
> appropriate modeling language.
> > On the other hand different management tasks need to be addressed, e.g. fault,
> performance and security management and not only configuration.
> >
> > I think we need also understand that in the Coman draft, M2M is just one use case
> between many.
> >
> > It would be indeed useful to elaborate, how far OMA LwM2M supports the network
> management requirements listed in the Coman draft, which cover both management of
> constrained devices and the management of networks with diverse topologies
> containing constrained and non-constrained devices.
> >
> > Mehmet
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 12.03.2013 um 14:52 schrieb "ext Zach Shelby" <zach@sensinode.com>:
> >
> >> On Mar 12, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>>> "Zach" == Zach Shelby <zach@sensinode.com> writes:
> >>> Zach> We are just completing a new OMA Lightweight M2M standard
> >>> Zach> which includes an efficient Object system for managing
> >>> Zach> constrained devices over CoAP. It has a highly optimised form
> >>> Zach> of Object format which is applicable for device management,
> >>> Zach> network management and also application data. If you are
> >>> Zach> interested, I will present more information about this new
> >>> Zach> standard at the CoRE meeting on Wednesday.
> >>>
> >>> Awesome!!!!
> >>>
> >>> is that:
> >>>            CoRE Resource Directory
> >>>    draft-shelby-core-resource-directory-05
> >>
> >> Lightweight M2M (LWM2M) is a system standard in the Open Mobile Alliance. It
> includes DTLS, CoAP, Block, Observe, SenML and Resource Directory and weaves them
> into a device-server interface along with an Object structure. It uses a subset of the
> Resource Directory functionality, so the Resource Directory spec in CoRE is a more
> general solution.
> >>
> >> In the Wed CoRE meeting I will be presenting a few slides on this (starts at page
> 113 of http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/86/slides/slides-86-core-1.pdf). You can also access
> the entire specification at:
> >>
> >>
> http://member.openmobilealliance.org/ftp/Public_documents/DM/LightweightM2M/Perm
> anent_documents/OMA-TS-LightweightM2M-V1_0_0-20130301-D.zip
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Zach
> >>
> >> --
> >> Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd.
> >> http://www.sensinode.com @SensinodeIoT
> >> Mobile: +358 40 7796297
> >> Twitter: @zach_shelby
> >> LinkedIn: http://fi.linkedin.com/in/zachshelby
> >> 6LoWPAN Book: http://6lowpan.net
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> coman mailing list
> >> coman@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/coman
> > _______________________________________________
> > coman mailing list
> > coman@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/coman
> 
> --
> Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd.
> http://www.sensinode.com @SensinodeIoT
> Mobile: +358 40 7796297
> Twitter: @zach_shelby
> LinkedIn: http://fi.linkedin.com/in/zachshelby
> 6LoWPAN Book: http://6lowpan.net
> 
> 
> 