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

<Jonathan.Hansford@generaldynamics.uk.com> Tue, 03 April 2012 09:29 UTC

Return-Path: <Jonathan.Hansford@generaldynamics.uk.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10C1C21F8616 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 02:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TQNsdXWqMCPa for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 02:29:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com [195.245.231.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67AE221F8514 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 02:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [85.158.136.35:56021] by server-12.bemta-5.messagelabs.com id AB/9E-05587-8F2CA7F4; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:29:28 +0000
X-Env-Sender: Jonathan.Hansford@generaldynamics.uk.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-125.messagelabs.com!1333445368!23473325!1
X-Originating-IP: [217.33.196.17]
X-StarScan-Version: 6.5.7; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 7266 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2012 09:29:28 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.generaldynamics.uk.com) (217.33.196.17) by server-12.tower-125.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 3 Apr 2012 09:29:28 -0000
Received: from mail.generaldynamics.uk.com (HELO gdukadh864.uk1.r-org.net) ([172.16.40.142]) by mail.generaldynamics.uk.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2012 10:29:26 +0100
Received: from GDUKADH850.uk1.r-org.net ([172.16.40.138]) by gdukadh864.uk1.r-org.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 3 Apr 2012 10:29:27 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:29:26 +0100
Message-ID: <83C941F7F59F3F42AC017AD1E650546206952E1E@GDUKADH850.uk1.r-org.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F776898.9060904@netconfcentral.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] Netconf Light or Netconf for constrained devices
Thread-Index: Ac0RfEM6noYub3+yQvyjV+yIIqOHxg==
References: <B9468E58D6A0A84AAD66FE4E694BEABB49CA8C16@ucolhp4j.easf.csd.disa.mil><4F765A4F.3040805@netconfcentral.org><20120331051538.GB70150@elstar.local><4F76AA02.4030401@netconfcentral.org><20120331093809.GB70620@elstar.local><4F7701F9.7020802@netconfcentral.org><20120331142936.GA71199@elstar.local> <4F776898.9060904@netconfcentral.org>
From: Jonathan.Hansford@generaldynamics.uk.com
To: netconf@ietf.org
X-NAIMIME-Disclaimer: 1
X-NAIMIME-Modified: 1
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Apr 2012 09:29:27.0291 (UTC) FILETIME=[43B11CB0:01CD117C]
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Netconf Light or Netconf for constrained devices
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:29:34 -0000

For someone recently coming to NETCONF, I would have thought constrained
devices would include some or all of the following characteristics:

* During development, prior to release, it would be good to
incrementally add NETCONF functionality without the need to add
deviation statements

* Device with limited CPU

* Device with limited memory

* Device with limited bandwidth available

* Device with limited power available

An example of a device that could include most of these constraints
might be found on a sensor net. 

Are there other constraints that need to be considered? Should any of
these constraints preclude the use of NETCONF?

If all of these can be successfully supported using vanilla NETCONF then
guidance on how that could be achieved would be helpful.

Thanks,

Jonathan Hansford


This email and any files attached are intended for the addressee and may contain information of a confidential nature. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that this email was sent to you in error and you should not disclose, distribute, print, copy or make other use of this email or its attachments. Such actions, in fact, may be unlawful. In compliance with the various Regulations and Acts, General Dynamics United Kingdom Limited reserves the right to monitor (and examine for viruses) all emails and email attachments, both inbound and outbound. Email communications and their attachments may not be secure or error- or virus-free and the company does not accept liability or responsibility for such matters or the consequences thereof. General Dynamics United Kingdom Limited, Registered Office: 21 Holborn Viaduct, London EC1A 2DY. Registered in England and Wales No: 1911653.