Re: [core] Benoit Claise's Block on charter-ietf-core-01-01: (with BLOCK)

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

Hi Benoit,

these are indeed useful clarifications.

Benoit Claise wrote:
> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-core-01-01: Block
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-core/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> BLOCK:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Two points I would like to discuss.
> 
> - "CoRE will also develop a way to make RESTCONF-style management
> functions
> available via CoAP that is appropriate for constrained node networks. 
> This
> will require very close coordination with NETCONF and other operations
> and
> management working groups."
> 
> What is the goal of this coordination with NETCONF?
> Could RESTCONF be reused? If not, why not?
> If yes, will RESTCONF need to be modified?

We want to coordinate with the NETCONF WG to ensure that the result of
our work makes sense as a part of the overall NETCONF family.

The basis for COMI is RESTCONF, but there will be a need for some
streamlining.  It is not clear whether this will lead to modifications
of RESTCONF itself; more likely COMI will just be a dialect that is
applicable to very constrained devices.  There are different approaches
on the question whether the YANG models have to take some specific care
about being used in COMI, or whether COMI covers all kinds of
RESTCONF-capable YANG models, possibly with varying degrees of
efficiency based on how COMI-aware their design is.

> - What is the data model (language) used for the resources? For example,
> RESTCONF uses YANG

YANG.

> Maybe, this information is in this paragraph
> 
> CoRE will work on related data formats, such as alternative
> representations
> of RFC 6690 link format and RFC 7390 group communication information. 
> The
> working group will complete the SenML specification, again with
> consideration to its adoption in OMA LWM2M.
> 
> However, I have no clue what the second sentence means.

This paragraph is not about management information, but about formats
for the actual content data (e.g., SenML is used to represent [time
series of] sensor data) and application interaction.

Grüße, Carsten