[core] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-etch-03: (with COMMENT)
"Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 13 October 2016 12:18 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietf.org
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B401F12943B; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 05:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.34.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <147636111873.2840.15922934637733990470.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 05:18:38 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/tGbi3P1W85bu8VvD2ooK8Kg6yEY>
Cc: draft-ietf-core-etch@ietf.org, core-chairs@ietf.org, core@ietf.org, jiangsheng@huawei.com
Subject: [core] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-etch-03: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:18:39 -0000
Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-core-etch-03: No Objection 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.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-etch/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [reflections on core, as opposed to actionable items for the document] Coming back to Alissa's DISCUSS and Sheng Jiang's OPS DIR review: This Standards Track document defines a new CoAP methods, FETCH, to perform the equivalent of a GET with a request body; and the twin methods PATCH and iPATCH, to modify parts of a CoAP resource. This document is well written. I don't see any major issues from the operations and management perspective. It is almost ready to be published. There are one of potential major (the word potential means I don’t really sure how serious it may be) comments from me: In section 2.5, it raises an issue that “a FETCH request cannot be generated from a link alone, but also needs a way to generate the request payload.” From the discussion text, I am not sure whether there are existing way to generate the request payload or not. And I am not sure whether the FECTCH method needs a standard such way to be able to work or not. If the answer for my first question is no, or the question for my second question is yes. Then we probably have an major issue here. I wish my suspecting is wrong. I would like to make sure I understand (with my OPS background,): - COAP (RFC7252) is about HTTP GET, POST, PUT, DELETE for constrained nodes and constrained environments - draft-ietf-core-etch specification specifies the new CoAP methods, FETCH, PATCH and iPATCH, which are used to access and update parts of a resource. - CBOR (RFC7049) is the binary encoding of JSON for COAP. And for draft-ietf-core-etch, I guess? - There are two data modeling language in CORE YANG: draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-02 provides the mapping for YANG data models encoding: CBOR SenML: draft-ietf-core-senml-02 provides Media Types for Sensor Markup Language encodings: JSON, CBOR, XML, EXI Good so far? Coming to Alissa's DISCUSS: It seems that FETCH is not a useful operation unless the server is capable of understanding what it is supposed to fetch. So it's not true that "any" media type can be used, but rather only those media types for which a definition exists for what the fetch parameters indicate and which part of the resource they are intended to delineate. Shouldn't the use of FETCH be constrained to such media types? So what we're missing for this to work is the equivalent of RESTCONF for constrained nodes/networks - Either "CoAP Management Interface", draft-vanderstok-core-comi-09 (btw this draft expired...) - Or Constrained Objects Language, draft-veillette-core-cool-02 Note: COMI is mentioned in the draft, but not COOL Is this what is meant behind? it is outside the scope of this document how information about admissible media types is obtained by the client There is a clear parallel with RESTCONF (REST-like) and the CORE work: NETMOD/NETCONF CORE Data Modeling Language YANG YANG or SenML (*) Data Models YANG Module YANG Module or SenML (*) Encoding XML, JSON CBOR for YANG, JSON/CBOR/XML/EXI for SENML Protocol HTTP for RESTCONF COAP Mgmt Protocol RESTCONF/NETCONF COMI or COOL for YANG, for SenML?? (**) (*) not sure if SenML is a data modeling language or data models (**) not sure if a specific mgmt protocol for SenML Please let me know. Regards, Benoit
- [core] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf… Benoit Claise
- Re: [core] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… peter van der Stok
- Re: [core] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… Benoit Claise
- Re: [core] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… peter van der Stok