Subject: [Coma] (no subject)

From: "Yan Wang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:29:29 +0800

Hi all

I just saw this mailing list and it seems valuable. I don't know whether
management of service in the constrained network is also inside the scope. 

By the way,
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-guidance-00#section-4.5 mentioned
development of a light-weight SNMP agent for resource constrained devices
running the 6LoWPAN/RPL protocol stack.

What the relationship between coma and core, coma and lwig?

Best wishes,

Yan

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:18:51 +0200

> running the 6LoWPAN/RPL protocol stack.

We have implemented an SNMP stack on Contiki and we have published
details about it. I think I only very partially agree with what is
written in this section 4.5. There is also an old expired I-D that
might be relevant: <draft-hamid-6lowpan-snmp-optimizations-03.txt>

> What the relationship between coma and core, coma and lwig?

My understanding is that CORE is specifying CoAP. CoAP may be used for
management but CORE is not chartered to specifically look at this
question. LWIG is looking at coming up with general guidelines for
light-weight implementations of IP protocols and hence might include
guidelines for implementing SNMP. COMA probably can take a broader
look at what is needed and in particular what the requirements driving
things are. There is also discussion on the netconf WG list related to
constrained devices, but it is as of now not chartered work.

I assume COMA is an attempt to provide a common place to discuss the
management requirements and aspects of constrained networks and
devices instead of having discussions in several places.

Of course, as Bert Wijnen kept saying, adding a protocol with the best
intentions to replace other protocols just leads at the end to one
more protocol. If that applies to discussion lists as well, then we
just have one more. ;-)

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:15:16 +0200

Hi Yan,

service management is a huge topic area and I assume we cannot cover it
exhaustively. IMO service management should be discussed as part of the
use cases. Based on this we need to understand the requirements on the
management of networks with constrained devices.

Cheers, 
Mehmet 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of ext
> Juergen Schoenwaelder
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:19 PM
> To: Yan Wang
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Coma] (no subject)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Coma mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/coma

---

From: "Yan Wang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 21:11:09 +0800

Dear Mehmet and Juergen,
Thank you for your replies. Service management is really more suitable to
put in the use case.
There are many kinds of constraint networks and devices, as well as many
kinds of existing protocols for network management. I am still not quite
clear about the management requirements. Maybe we should propose several use
cases of different kinds of networks. It is good to make clear about their
common requirements and individual requirements. 

Best wishes,
Yan

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 5:15 PM
> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Yan Wang
> Cc: [email-masked]
use
> cases. Based on this we need to understand the requirements on the

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 15:28:59 +0200

Hi Yan,

> Maybe we should propose several use cases of different kinds of
networks. 
> It is good to make clear about their common requirements and
individual requirements.

I would appreciate it if you could provide the type of constraint
networks/devices and the use cases you have in mind as input for
discussion.

Our aim is to look at the use cases and requirements independently of
existing protocols. We might highlight gaps in existing technologies but
selecting the right protocol is an individual decision. 

Cheers, 
Mehmet 

> From: ext Yan Wang [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 3:11 PM
> To: Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich); 'Juergen Schoenwaelder'
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Coma] (no subject)
> 
> Dear Mehmet and Juergen,
Of
> > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 04:29:29PM +0800, Yan Wang wrote:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-guidance-00#section-4.5
> > mentioned
> > > > development of a light-weight SNMP agent for resource
constrained
> > devices