IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits

Rodney Cummings <rodney.cummings@ni.com> Fri, 20 November 2015 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <rodney.cummings@ni.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C32631B3A09 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:36:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 q4548RUJqs_0 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:36:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0117.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7ED91B3A08 for <core@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:36:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BN1PR04MB424.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.141.58.153) by BN1PR04MB422.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.141.58.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.325.17; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 17:36:46 +0000
Received: from BN1PR04MB424.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.133]) by BN1PR04MB424.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.133]) with mapi id 15.01.0325.019; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 17:36:46 +0000
From: Rodney Cummings <rodney.cummings@ni.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Thread-Topic: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits
Thread-Index: AQHRIRwteQFUWYBvd0yDLSdmSQn7rZ6gWGHwgAAhdwCAAOkigIAAEbUAgACGqICAASZkgIAAaEQAgAAFAoCAAGyNAIAAfaIAgAC0CsA=
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 17:36:45 +0000
Message-ID: <BN1PR04MB42452BD7FF0CFE2BF1258DE921A0@BN1PR04MB424.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <0559fa310f26530d1c1e89c1ed64b7aa@xs4all.nl> <BN1PR04MB424BAAB4D9E771D891BD06F921D0@BN1PR04MB424.namprd04.prod.outlook.com> <CABCOCHQ8QQArhVUVT4FkYOYnYny4osGMeY4F6jvNjZ0v9Pa3bg@mail.gmail.com> <cf7b132ec85a3781bf4e3a28cda4cb97@xs4all.nl> <0E9A48AB39AF3547ACD28A6DE3E2906A0F1AC492@ATBRAGMSX02.itiso.net> <CABCOCHROWZtR3jZ431ZK_rxZR-giAr9qzGcANzYSD-a85dSyHQ@mail.gmail.com> <0E9A48AB39AF3547ACD28A6DE3E2906A0F1ACE72@ATBRAGMSX02.itiso.net> <CABCOCHTQ6h6zAzL+OyrMT_xKcOzk1=Z7DtaSniQTO2PTOuDW9w@mail.gmail.com> <564DFAD7.1000800@tzi.org> <CABCOCHRU2S9TBMLtEfA_jqHa1+jVC4Sk8hZG0OiVi5q6mP+yXg@mail.gmail.com> <564EBF4A.8010405@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <564EBF4A.8010405@tzi.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rodney.cummings@ni.com;
x-originating-ip: [130.164.62.95]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN1PR04MB422; 5:yrYOyNhcnV/rKeEt7MCGZo8CPEkMg6/MhbDsqPwgbJUnxBbCXjXL3vmgjfY2MS/xwftAl5aaA0FJ5/XPNKLcUgAjtchuuRahXBVojoKpZYLaDlPO0AzqxakaJrLBmSpAmJjQNaXfUW71+Oyq3dHMGA==; 24:X7L8NfVCrMHBq2x8TEW+p7ijrQznDOyVqrrB/PPhFdNbMAIb5FmHvWUNgNxeofhIyom+ix8qr2FjKJR+EWDn8nrPXAruqZb9kwq1Hvs+5jw=; 20:81rmtjj42HFS95qr/BK3jmgfPvG9GZT7fyMycxwca6yMqZsUHVcm4blv04zjPLh1RC+ReDiTmIdndHE3ZC187Q==
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BN1PR04MB422;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN1PR04MB4223A818B90136AE73D29D4921A0@BN1PR04MB422.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(520078)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001); SRVR:BN1PR04MB422; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN1PR04MB422;
x-forefront-prvs: 07665BE9D1
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(24454002)(13464003)(377454003)(189002)(199003)(76176999)(106356001)(87936001)(101416001)(5004730100002)(50986999)(5002640100001)(5007970100001)(10400500002)(189998001)(5001960100002)(5003600100002)(74316001)(105586002)(5008740100001)(11100500001)(33656002)(15975445007)(2950100001)(99286002)(92566002)(106116001)(81156007)(54356999)(122556002)(2900100001)(93886004)(97736004)(40100003)(76576001)(66066001)(86362001)(586003)(3846002)(19580405001)(19580395003)(5001770100001)(6116002)(102836003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR04MB422; H:BN1PR04MB424.namprd04.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ni.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ni.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 20 Nov 2015 17:36:45.8925 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 87ba1f9a-44cd-43a6-b008-6fdb45a5204e
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN1PR04MB422
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/BVw8gVtJbZB5bAXfuVunl_JHhDw>
Cc: Core <core@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 17:36:51 -0000

I agree with Carsten on the point below.

As an example, the YANG development in progress for 802.1Q is using features, augments, and so on in order to build up modules from the basic components to more complex components (e.g. for providers). The basic components essentially represent the hardware registers of a switch. As constrained products explore integration of an 802.1Q switch in their product, the question of a constrained network management protocol comes up. IMO CoMI/CoOL provides an excellent solution for this use case, using the 802.1Q module(s) for basic components (i.e. modules not specifically targeted to constrained).


> -----Original Message-----
> From: core [mailto:core-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 12:36 AM
> To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
> Cc: Core <core@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits
> 
> Andy Bierman wrote:
> > [...] IMO constrained nodes
> > will never be using the same modules that are written for networking
> > equipment.
> 
> Is that so?  Why wouldn't I use a couple of items from, say, RFC 7317
> (or 7277) in my constrained node?  In the end these are just resources
> that I add to my resource tree.  Of course, cherry-picking may require
> some form of subsetting that may not yet be part of the NETCONF approach.
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> core@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status