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

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 27, 2013, at 00:18, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]> wrote:

> This clearly is at the political layer. Within the IETF, we have SMIv2
> to write MIB modules (~20 years of experience) and YANG to write YANG
> modules (~2 (?) years of experience).

Yes, and that's why it's pretty natural to do the 6LoWPAN MIB in SMIv2.

But it's not natural to decouple 6lo from further developments in the management data modeling space.

(It never occurred to me that "MIB modules" might be read to say "SMIv2 only", but now that you say it, it indeed can be interpreted in a narrow sense.)

> Do you want an open ended
> charter or something concrete? In fact, I would argue that it is not
> 6lo's charter item to invent how contrained networks are managed nor
> is it their charter to define yet another data modeling approach.

Neither.  6lo's job is to do the data models based on its domain knowledge of the adaptation and link layers, not to do new data modeling approaches.
But if a new one becomes viable for constrained node networks, we shouldn't have to recharter to use it.

Now, on to the wording, maybe we can fix that:

OLD:
> 2. Related MIB modules

Hmm:
> 2. Related interfaces for management applications (e.g., MIB modules)

NEW:
> 2. Related MIB modules (including, where applicable, management data models using other established IETF management data modeling schemes).


Grüße, Carsten