IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 03 October 2013 12:04 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94CB621F98AC; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 05:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.089, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uFXecSPSb6pY; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 05:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-4.cisco.com (ams-iport-4.cisco.com [144.254.224.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E0F921F8EDF; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 04:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=982; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1380801563; x=1382011163; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xNxbzD8qMTsE8DOOag3XE+XGRwd9ryhdOFDUkNtM9x4=; b=mGKHC0HcROVuZfhHwheICYVOxS1v87NSg2HRPYDHCzK/qQbT+pbhOVoJ 3znG/mBeqePW5LpP/v6rDRssBoWcNqP7kPZKKswp88Ylzsl4msvwFAFGI bSSReNWQ3x2UgXiHeu44soZAgQkI2L+XwqY54wa0Fq/dvc4h9JgDnwhf0 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhsFACZbTVKQ/khN/2dsb2JhbABZgwfCRoEgFnSCJQEBAQMBOEAGCwsYCRYPCQMCAQIBRQYBDAgBAYd8Brxtj1iEIwOYAYY1i0qBZoFAOg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1025,1371081600"; d="scan'208";a="18497642"
Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Oct 2013 11:59:19 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.85] (ams-bclaise-8914.cisco.com [10.60.67.85]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r93BxEil018351; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:59:16 GMT
Message-ID: <524D5C12.6040606@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 13:59:14 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Turner, Randy" <Randy.Turner@landisgyr.com>, "coman@ietf.org" <coman@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
References: <20130926132817.GB25326@elstar.local> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E9913@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <20130926215221.GA26059@elstar.local> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E9DF0@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <20130930120122.GC7925@elstar.local> <BD90D6F5-B01E-40CD-880D-6E9A597581BE@bogus.com> <d3b936fbfff74f21b0fbefb2dfedf77e@DB3PR01MB011.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> <524D2BCB.8020008@cisco.com> <20131003091615.GA28542@elstar.local> <524D3C88.3040701@cisco.com> <20131003112427.GA28779@elstar.local>
In-Reply-To: <20131003112427.GA28779@elstar.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [coman] [6lo] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo)
X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 12:04:50 -0000

> On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 11:44:40AM +0200, Benoit Claise wrote:
>
>> I don't want to discuss the format or language for the information
>> model here, but that would be a start. Yes.
>>
>> I know that you know all about SNMP/MIB, NETCONF/YANG,
>> Information/Data Model, and more, and that all this is clear in your
>> mind. And I guess that you have your views on how to manage
>> constrained devices: fine.
>>
>> The issue I was trying to solve with, what could appear to be a
>> trick to you (knowing your background), is sending the wrong message
>> in a charter. And that message could/will be taken as granted by the
>> rest of the pack.
> My observation is that this protocol layer is rather simple and in the
> past we did not ask for explicit information models for things that
> are reasonably simple. But perhaps those times are over...
It's not black or white.
Constrained nodes are non traditional managed devices.

Regards, Benoit

>
> /js
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email