Re: [Netconf] Netconf Light or Netconf for constrained devices

On 03/30/2012 09:51 AM, Cole, Robert G CIV USARMY CERDEC (US) wrote:
> Bert,
>
> I am interested in a NETCONF-lite for constrained devises.  However, I worry about approaches that either baseline at either a) NETCONF- zero with vendors adding whatever features they think appropriate  or b) NETCONF with vendors subtracting whatever deviations they think appropriate.   I would, for simplicity sake, prefer the expertise in the WG to define a baseline NETCONF-lite feature set that I could easily explain to my acquisition and procurement folks.
>

This seems reasonable -- if we can agree on the definition of a constrained device.
According to the draft, 'constrained' can mean either the device resources
or the server developer resources.

NETCONF is intended to provide configuration management functionality.
I think the people who want NETCONF-Light should write a requirements
document that defines a constrained device, identifies the specific
use cases and specific subset of CM functionality that is mandatory
for constrained devices.

I am concerned about application developers who need to provide
meaningful CM functionality to customers, and this will be nearly
impossible unless the IETF agrees on a mandatory-to-implement subset of NETCONF.

> Thanks,  Bob

Andy

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bert Wijnen (IETF) [mailto:bertietf@bwijnen.net]
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 08:47 AM
> To: netconf@ietf.org<netconf@ietf.org>
> Subject: [Netconf] Netconf Light or Netconf for constrained devices
>
> We would like to encourage the WG participants to
> engage in a discussion on how to allow for
> the use of NetConf for constrained devices.
>
> See below the summary of our discussion at this weeks
> session in IETF83.
>
> Please express your opinions and pls describe
> the pros and cons (as you see them) of each
> possible approach.
>
> It might also be good if someone (Andy?) could
> summarize/describe how exactly one can in fact support
> constrained devices with standard Netconf plus
> a "deviations" approach. Maybe an example would be
> the best way to demonstrate how that would be done.
>
> Bert and Mehmet
>
> On 3/30/12 10:32 AM, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
>> NETCONF-Light:
>>
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder described the updated document, which defines only
>> the hello message as mandatory. Andy Bierman questioned the strategy to
>> provide a solution which is competing with the current NETCONF protocol
>> standard, where deviations can be used to reduce the standard features
>> for an implementation. The WG was in favor of the draft however the
>> issue needs to be solved and needs a discussion on the maillist as one
>> of the key contributors of the draft was not present. NETCONF-Light
>> makes use of the TLS Pre-Shared Key (PSK) authentication introduced in
>> the update of NETCONF over TLS.
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
>