Re: [OPSAWG] Comments on draft-opsawg-ersue-coman-probstate-reqs

[James Nguyen <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I really enjoy reading this draft.  In general, in my opinion is very
useful for managing constrained devices.

I have a couple of questions/suggestions:

(1) Req-ID 4.3.002 Title: Capacity Discovery

     I don't quite understand this req.  Please be more specific.

(2) Section 3.3 Configuration Management

     Session-oriented configuration protocol may be expensive for managing
a large number of similar devices.  In a case when common redundant
configurations is issued, reliable multicast with negative acknowledgement
(e.g. Negative ACKnowledgement (NACK)-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM))
would work best.  I suggest to add a reliable transport requirement in this
section.  Moreover, a common data model would be needed.

     Stateless configuration update solution would also work well for
constrained networks.

(3) Section 3.8 Group-based provisioning

     As I mentioned in (2), a common data model would be required for
common redundant configurations.  I suggest to add this requirement here.

Hope this helps.

James






On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>  Hi Hui,
>
>
>
> thank you for your kind review.
>
>
>
> > 1. in section 3., a section of ‘IPv4/v6 address management’ could be
> helpful, including the discussion of different types of ip addresses on
> devices, link-local, global, private, etc..
>
> Concerning IPv4/v6 addresses which requirements do you have in mind from
> management pov.?
>
>
>
> > 2. in Appendix A, any relevant discussion in ‘oneM2M’?
>
> I would need your help for this as I’m not involved in oneM2M. Thanks.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Mehmet
>
>
>
> *From:* OPSAWG [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *ext Hui
> Deng
> *Sent:* Monday, January 06, 2014 8:49 AM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [OPSAWG] Comments on draft-opsawg-ersue-coman-probstate-reqs
>
>
>
> Hi Authors,
>
>
>
> This document is very useful for service providers and operators that are
> managing their constrained devices.
>
>
>
> Two cents for authors to consider,
>
> 1. in section 3., a section of ‘IPv4/v6 address management’ could be
> helpful, including the discussion of different types of ip addresses on
> devices, link-local, global, private, etc..
>
> 2. in Appendix A, any relevant discussion in ‘oneM2M’?
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> -Hui
>
>
>
>
> 2014/1/4 Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) <[e-mail]>
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> thank you for your review and comments. See below.
>
> Cheers,
> Mehmet
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: OPSAWG [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ext
> Romascanu, Dan
> > (Dan)
> > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 2:23 PM
> > To: Warren Kumari; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Call for reviewers of draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-*
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I do not know if I really should be included in the reviewers count, as
> I am a participant
> > in the coman work since it started, and my name shows up on the list of
> authors,
> > although in all sincerity most of the credits go to Mehmet, who hold the
> pen for most
> > of the time, including this latest wound which split the original
> document into two
> > separate documents - one for use cases, the other for problem statement
> and
> > requirements. Anyway, FWIW I obviously believe this work is useful and I
> support
> > doing it in the OPSAWG. I have a few comments recorded below:
> >
> >  draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-use-cases
> >
> > 1. I do not believe that we can get away with a zero-content security
> considerations
> > section. The described use cases mention the need to secure information
> collected by
> > constrained devices, some other (like security cameras) carry
> information related to
> > personal or public security that needs to be protected by robust
> mechanisms. These
> > kind of threats need to be mentioned IMO.
>
> You are right a dummy security considerations section is not sufficient.
> Coman was not planning to address security exhaustively. Solace, now ACE,
> has
> been started where security for constrained devices will be discussed.
> We discussed the security requirements in section 3.6 of the problem
> statement draft.
>
> I agree, a discussion of the security threads should be provided in a
> security considerations section.
>
> > draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs
> >
> > 1. The draft uses the 'adjective' small device in association with
> constrained device in a
> > few place. I suggest to remove this. There is no automatic association
> of a device
> > being small implying that it is also constrained. Nor are all
> constrained devices small in
> > size.
>
> Agree. We should be more precise with the terminology.
>
> > 2. We have made an effort in the last few versions and especially in
> this one to
> > distinguish between the constrained devices and constrained networks,
> but the clean-up
> > on this issue is not complete. For example section 1.6 still has text
> about constrained
> > networks - this section and other in which constrained networks are
> mentioned should
> > be carefully examined to make sure that the focus of the document stays
> with
> > constrained devices, and that if constrained networks are mentioned at
> all this is in the
> > context of their relationship with the constrained devices.
>
> Why strictly devices? We also have requirements discussing the
> organization of constrained networks from management pov. in section 3.1.
>
> > 3. I do not believe that we can get away with a zero-content security
> considerations
> > section here either. The document even says:
> >
> >    If specific requirements for
> >    security will be identified, they will be described in future
> >    versions of this document.
> >
> > This is not accurate - section 3.6 already speaks about requirments for
> security and
> > access control, and section 1.6 mentions limitations that would prevent
> the
> > implementation of strong scryptographic algorythms. The text needs to be
> reviewed
> > and revised from this perspective.
>
> I think the "future" is now and the current text in the security
> considerations section needs to be replaced. I would suggest to provide a
> security considerations section by listing and discussing threads in the
> problem statement draft and refer to it from the use cases draft.
> Comments?
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: OPSAWG [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Warren
> Kumari
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 6:49 PM
> > > To: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: [OPSAWG] Call for reviewers of draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-*
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Hopefully you all had a good Thanksgiving -- if you are in the US,
> > > hopefully you had good turkey, stuffing / whatever.
> > > If you are not US based, hopefully you enjoyed the decrease in email
> > > volume while everyone recovered form eating too much. :-)
> > >
> > > One of the action items from Vancouver was for us to call for reviewers
> > > for:
> > >
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs/
> > > and
> > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-use-cases/
> > >
> > > So, can we get some volunteers please? According to our new guidelines
> > > we require sufficient reviewers before adopting new work.
> > >
> > > The documents are (IMO) interesting and easy to read. Constrained
> > > devices have some interesting requirements and limitations.
> > > If you would like a quick reminder / refresher from the meeting, slides
> > > are here:
> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/88/slides/slides-88-opsawg-11.pdf
> > >
> > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]> indicated
> > > that one of his Ph.D. students had read the draft a couple of weeks
> ago.
> > > So they just have to review the changes to the latest version.
> > >
> > >
> > > W
> > > --
> > > "I think it would be a good idea."
> > > - Mahatma Ghandi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > OPSAWG mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> > _______________________________________________
> > OPSAWG mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>
>


-- 
James Nguyen
Email: [e-mail]