Re: [coman] are we there yet?

>Therefore I would see a need for an IETF effort to help define more Objects for the purpose of managing constrained devices and networks, which could then be registered with the OMA registry.

OK, sounds good. 

Kind Regards
Kepeng

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Zach Shelby [mailto:zach@sensinode.com] 
发送时间: 2013年3月12日 10:20
收件人: Likepeng
抄送: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich); James Nguyen; coman@ietf.org; Ulrich Herberg; ext Michael Richardson
主题: Re: [coman] are we there yet?

Hi,

We are just completing a new OMA Lightweight M2M standard which includes an efficient Object system for managing constrained devices over CoAP. It has a highly optimised form of Object format which is applicable for device management, network management and also application data. If you are interested, I will present more information about this new standard at the CoRE meeting on Wednesday. 

Taking this into account, I definitely do not believe there is a need to develop new protocols to manage these device. The whole point is that we need to use the same protocol for management and the application. 

The OMA Lightweight activity only defines a standard set of device, connectivity, firmware and location objects. The IPSO Alliance is working on some application data Objects. Therefore I would see a need for an IETF effort to help define more Objects for the purpose of managing constrained devices and networks, which could then be registered with the OMA registry. 

Regards,
Zach

On Mar 11, 2013, at 9:55 PM, Likepeng <likepeng@huawei.com> wrote:

>> To do what exactly?
> 
> As far as I can see, the main scope is to manage the constrained device.
> 
> Currently we have some protocols to manage mobile devices, like OMA DM. And we have SNMP to manage networks. But these protocols are too heavy to be used to manage the constrained devices. That is why I think the work is valid.
> 
> I notice that we have two drafts available already, one is about the problem statement, and use cases, the other one is the gap analysis, to identify the gaps between the requirements and the current standards.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ersue-constrained-mgmt-03
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-greevenbosch-coman-candidate-tech/
> 
> We have a good start point, and can continue to work towards the intended scope.
> 
> Kind Regards
> Kepeng
> 
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de] 
> 发送时间: 2013年3月12日 9:40
> 收件人: Likepeng
> 抄送: James Nguyen; Ulrich Herberg; Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich); coman@ietf.org; ext Michael Richardson
> 主题: Re: [coman] are we there yet?
> 
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 01:00:19AM +0000, Likepeng wrote:
>> +1.
>> I think the work is valuable in IETF.
>> We should try to push it and form a WG.
> 
> To do what exactly?
> 
> /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/>
> _______________________________________________
> 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