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

[Ulrich Herberg <[e-mail]>]

Dan,

thank you for these comments. I think these are two important
questions. See below:

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 5:47 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a couple of issues with the way this charter is worded at this point, which makes the scope of the proposed WG unclear to me on some respects.
>
> 1. There is careful wording about 'link layer technologies of interest' and about 'Security and management work that is not specific to the link layers being worked on is out of scope' - but no indication what are the criteria to identify these, or a list of initial such layer technologies. Is this completely open by now? Is there a process to discuss and select those?

Starting with an initial list of link layers (based on existing
drafts) is one option, but would make it rather hard to add other link
layers later, as it would require a recharter. I'd rather suggest to
precise the process of selecting technologies, based on the criteria
that are listed in the first paragraph of the current charter:

====================
OLD
1. IPv6-over-foo adaptation layer specifications using 6LoWPAN
technologies (RFC4944, RFC6282, RFC6775) for link layer technologies
of interest in constrained node networks

NEW
1. IPv6-over-foo adaptation layer specifications using 6LoWPAN
technologies (RFC4944, RFC6282, RFC6775) for link layer technologies
of interest in constrained node networks. The process for selecting
the link-layer technologies will be based on WG consensus.
====================

Alternatively, we could further extend the criteria, e.g.:

====================
NEW
1. IPv6-over-foo adaptation layer specifications using 6LoWPAN
technologies (RFC4944, RFC6282, RFC6775) for link layer technologies
of interest in constrained node networks (i.e., that expose several of
the above criteria for constrained node networks). The process for
selecting the link-layer technologies will be based on WG consensus.
====================


> 2. 'Selected MIB modules' - Did the team working on this proposal make any preparation work and determine that writing MIB modules is the appropriate way of meeting the manageability requirements for 6lo? If yes, where is this documented? If no, maybe this item should be worded in a more general manner and talk about requirements for managing the IP-over-foo specifications, followed by development of the appropriate information models and data models (the latest may be MIB modules, or may be something else).


This is a good point. I know the draft that Benoit cites well, and we
had intense discussions about management for constrained devices with
some of the people interested in "COMAN". At the last IETF there was a
COMAN discussion, which concluded (AFAIK) that MIBs are probably good
to keep as API (for compatibility and already existing work), but that
SNMP is likely not appropriate for constrained devices (at least not
as a general use case). I think that standardizing the 6lowpan MIB
would be useful, but we could make this bullet point more general and
not only focus on MIB modules. How about:


====================
OLD
2. Related MIB modules

NEW
2. Related interfaces for management applications (e.g., MIB modules)
====================

Best regards
Ulrich


>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:ietf-announce-
>> [e-mail]] On Behalf Of The IESG
>> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 9:02 PM
>> To: IETF-Announce
>> Cc: 6lo WG
>> Subject: WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes
>> (6lo)
>>
>> A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Internet Area. The
>> IESG has not made any determination yet. The following draft charter was
>> submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send
>> your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by 2013-10-03.
>>
>>  IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo)
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> Current Status: Proposed WG
>>
>> Chairs:
>>   Ulrich Herberg <[e-mail]>
>>   Samita Chakrabarti <[e-mail]>
>>
>> Technical advisors:
>>   Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>
>>
>> Assigned Area Director:
>>   Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>
>>
>> Mailing list
>>   Address: [e-mail]
>>   To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
>>   Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-
>> archive/web/6lo/current/maillist.html
>>
>> Charter:
>>
>> 6lo focuses on Internet Area work that is needed for constrained node
>> networks with the characteristics of:
>> * limited power, memory and processing resources
>> * hard upper bounds on state, code space and processing cycles
>> * optimization of energy and network bandwidth usage
>> * lack of some layer 2 services like complete device connectivity and
>>   broadcast/multicast
>>
>> Specifically, 6lo will work on:
>>
>> 1. IPv6-over-foo adaptation layer specifications using 6LoWPAN
>> technologies (RFC4944, RFC6282, RFC6775) for link layer technologies of
>> interest in constrained node networks
>>
>> 2. Related MIB modules
>>
>> 3. Specifications, such as header compression, that are applicable to
>> more than one adaptation layer specification
>>
>> 4. Maintenance and informational documents required for the existing
>> IETF specifications in this space.
>>
>> Only specifications targeting constrained node networks are in scope.
>> 6lo will work closely with the 6man working group, which will continue
>> to work on IP-over-foo documents outside the constrained node network
>> space and will continue to be the focal point for IPv6 maintenance. For
>> adaptation layer specifications that do not have implications on IPv6
>> architecture, 6man will be notified about 6lo's working group last call.
>> Specifications that might have such an impact (e.g., by using IPv6
>> addresses in a specific way or by introducing new ND options) will be
>> closely coordinated with 6man, and/or specific parts will be fanned out
>> to 6man documents. Beyond 6man, 6lo will also coordinate with LWIG and
>> INTAREA.
>>
>> 6lo works on small, focused pieces of Internet Area work. 6lo does not
>> take on larger cross-layer efforts. The working group will continue to
>> reuse existing protocols and mechanisms whenever reasonable and
>> possible.
>>
>> Security and management work that is not specific to the link layers
>> being worked on is out of scope. Work related to routing is out of
>> scope. 6lo will coordinate closely with the working groups in other
>> areas that focus on constrained node networks, such as ROLL (RTG) and
>> CoRE (APP).
>>
>> Milestones:
>>
>> TBD
> _______________________________________________
> coman mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/coman