Subject: [6lo] Further questions before proceeding with the 6lowpan-MIB

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 09:14:38 -0700

Dear WG,

thanks for getting back to me regarding publication of the 6lowpan-MIB
draft. So far we have 3 people supporting publication, nobody
objecting it. Any further +1/-1 for publication is appreciated.

I have the following further questions, that I ask you to respond to
within two weeks (until
June 5).

1. How many of you plan to implement this draft or have implemented it?
2. How many of you plan to use it for a real deployment?
3. Should this document be informational, experimental or standards track?

I want to know what the intended status of this document should be,
and have to answer these questions later in the write-up.

Best regards
Ulrich

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 13:32:23 -0400

> 2. How many of you plan to use it for a real deployment?

I have no plans to talk to this Information Model with SNMP.
I know that there is some code from the authors, and I would anticipate using
it in the interim on devices I have deployed.

I would really prefer (for code space and reuse reasons) to talk to it via
YANG over CoAP, and I believe (perhaps naively) that going from MIB
to YANG model is a well understood mechanical process, and that the
work to do that over CoAP is also well underway.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Thomas Watteyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 12:12:28 -0700

I second Michael's comment

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Michael Richardson
<[email-masked]>wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
>
>

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 00:06:28 +0200

> 1. How many of you plan to implement this draft or have implemented it?

For the sake of completeness, we did (except the per interface
statistics, which several people requested to be added but later did
not have time to review the changes).

> 2. How many of you plan to use it for a real deployment?

Out code is open source code - who knows what people do with it and
what is real deployment.

> 3. Should this document be informational, experimental or standards track?

Reading RFC 2026 again (and noting that RFC 6410 does not change the
definition of Proposed Standard in RFC 2026), I think it should be
standards track.

For me, the key question is whether we can be reasonably sure we got
the counters right. If so, make it standards-track, otherwise make it
experimental. Informational seems somewhat strange (most IETF MIBs are
actuall Proposed Standard, actually the "good enough" state as some
say. The relatively few Informational MIB modules the IETF has were
either developed outside WGs or they ended up being Informational
because of IPR concerns.

/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: peter van der Stok <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 08:40:23 +0200

The people I work for, have an interest in management, but do not know 
yet what are the important aspects to track during operation.
They are worried about message size, and prefer coap over snmp.
They do not care about YANG or SMI modelling, but SMI seems to include 
all wanted functionality.

Peter