Re: [coman] Device Classes?

Paul Duffy <paduffy@cisco.com> Mon, 07 April 2014 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <paduffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC14B1A07D9 for <coman@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 08:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oPGsT1wLLk6w for <coman@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 08:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96BB81A0795 for <coman@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 08:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1245; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1396886251; x=1398095851; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xWAUxAaINPSQJPQVOyyO2jtvANxqs2YfltsYqPvk3zg=; b=G4yGNQGbCQhnWuNFQT0My1vH4fqEOCWV+M89Z/2X6aGGgi8+viLjCbdm 0Gco7OSk8Gdu+1wGOOPoIoEzwkfwF3+NGVcXHMK1Hn972nJOF/OEMf9V1 m6vKEs60nnBPN4oveh4+5yEsKzKeid8w03xhg6VuqWac26lO32FGPxu0R c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgcFAJzKQlOtJA2I/2dsb2JhbABZgwbFMIElFnSCJQEBAQMBGCBAEQsYCRYPCQMCAQIBRRMIAQGHbQivVJwuF44oUBaEIgEDmFuGUYtug0whgS0
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,810,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="33681371"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2014 15:57:08 +0000
Received: from [10.86.246.56] ([10.86.246.56]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s37Fv7qB001646 for <coman@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 15:57:07 GMT
Message-ID: <5342CAD2.6050004@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 11:57:06 -0400
From: Paul Duffy <paduffy@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: coman@ietf.org
References: <533BBFB7.2000100@gmx.net> <893C4FAC-437D-4140-9832-A9ABA2D1518A@tzi.org> <533E75A9.5080003@gmx.net> <8D653B3C-E678-4A66-9798-978950977694@tzi.org> <533E9864.4060806@gmx.net> <EBDEF2B4-32C3-4B41-9CAF-C1A836CC6D7B@tzi.org> <533E9B6B.1080602@gmx.net> <20140404130409.GB81513@elstar.local>
In-Reply-To: <20140404130409.GB81513@elstar.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/coman/uaO43tpMSOLUzICfY0y7oCWWtvs
Subject: Re: [coman] Device Classes?
X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: paduffy@cisco.com
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: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 15:57:42 -0000

On 4/4/2014 9:04 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 01:45:47PM +0200, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>> Of course, you could replace CoAP entirely with SNMP (as Juergen had
>> suggested).
>>
> I did not suggest to replace CoAP with SNMP. What I said is:
>
> 1) We have done an SNMP only implementation and we know it works and
>     what the resource consumption is.

Please more detail?  SNMP version?  Security? Implemented MIBs, etc?


>
> 2) I see potential in a RESTCONF to CoAP mapping for devices that do
>     CoAP.
>
> 3) I agree with the desire to keep code down to a minimum and thus to
>     keep the number of protocols needed to a minimum.
>
> 4) In our experience, the biggest chunk of code and memory goes to
>     security and in particular crypto algorithms. Being able to exploit
>     crypto hardware is a major plus as is using the same security and
>     crypto mechanisms for all protocols supported.
>
> It would be really nice if we would all have a common understanding of
> what roughly the code and storage requirements of the various
> protocols involved are. Is LWIG producing something a kind of a survey
> like this? If so, this would be great I think.
>
> /js
>