Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Andy Bierman wrote:
> > I think the term "constrained" is not widely agreed upon in the IETF.
>
> No.  But we are using it in the sense of RFC 7228 here.
>

OK. So that means the scope includes constrained networks, not just
constrained nodes. I am interested in using CoMI as a replacement
for RESTCONF in constrained networks where TCP doesn't really work.

I want to use the same "content layer" and code for that content across the
board.
That means the exact same YANG data models, without exception, and the
translation
from RESTCONF features to CoMI features must be loss-less.  The protocol,
messaging, and transport layers can all change as needed.

I realize this is not what might work best for a constrained node.
Maybe we can build 2 separate protocols out the parts that have been
proposed.
I don't see managed IDs as a general solution, but IMO constrained nodes
will never be using the same modules that are written for networking
equipment.



> Grüße, Carsten
>


Andy