Re: [manet] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot-01.txt

[Henning Rogge <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Ulrich Herberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Would it be interesting to see if we can standardize a JSON query
>> interface? Or if we can map the SNMP definitions to JSON in a
>> reasonable way?
>
> That is a bigger question than can (or should IMO) be handled in this
> draft, but a very interesting one. And it may be even bigger than
> MANET. Are you aware of the COMAN mailing list?

No.

> They have discussed
> management of constrained devices for some time, although so far no
> BoF has resulted from these discussions. In the 6lo WG, we have
> similar discussions for how to manage constrained devices. There are
> proposals to reuse Yang models via HTTP
> (draft-bierman-netconf-restconf-04) or COAP
> (raft-vanderstok-core-comi-04). It would definitely be good to reuse
> existing management interfaces (such as MIB modules and YANG). The
> IESG has released a statement to prefer YANG over MIB modules for
> writable configuration:
> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html

I need to look at these drafts when I find the necessary time.

> I just recently had a phone call with three "B"-ADs on this topic
> (Benoit, Barry and Brian), and they promised to send out an email to
> multiple WGs regarding this topic, as it may require a cross-WG effort
> (the email is still pending).
>
> Coming back to your suggestion, JSON may be a good approach to manage
> devices. And it's good to see that you already have an implementation.

One reason for JSON seems to be that it can be easily parsed by shell
scripts and LUA scripts (which is common on OpenWRT because the
interpreter is very compact).

> I think we should discuss this more in Toronto. Will you be there?

Unfortunately not.

Henning Rogge