Subject: Re: [6lo] Intended status of draft-ietf-6lo-lowpan-mib: Experimental?

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:53:17 -0700

Hello,

as there were no objections or other comments, the chairs would ask
the draft-ietf-6lo-lowpan-mib authors to resubmit a new revision of
the draft with Experimental status. We will then go ahead and request
publication.

Some ADs have requested in the past a short section (e.g., as part of
the introduction) describing the "experiments". A suggestion is to add
this paragraph, saying that experiments should conclude whether (i)
MIB modules are the standard way that people will manage their
6lowpans and (ii) whether the selection of the counters is suitable
and sufficient.

Best regards
Ulrich

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Samita and I have discussed about the lowpan MIB draft. I appreciate
> that several of you have expressed your support for the document on
> the 6lo list, so we both believe that there is sufficient consensus
> now to go forward.
>
> However, we personally don't feel that Standards Track is the right
> status. Several people on the list mentioned that they are not yet
> sure how they will manage 6lowpans, possibly with more lightweight
> protocols. (We understand that a MIB module is not necessarily tied to
> SNMP, and that it can be converted to YANG if desired.) But most
> importantly, there seems to be a lack of (interoperable)
> implementations. So far, only Jürgen mentioned he has an
> implementation. There was also no intention on the list to deploy or
> implement the MIB module in the near future. We believe that this
> draft is a good candidate for Experimental, as it allows people to
> first figure out how they want to manage their networks, whether the
> proposed approach is suitable, whether the counters are the right
> ones, and to get implementation experience.
>
> This should be a consensual decision by the WG, so we ask you to send
> any objections or support for this suggestion to the list.
>
>
> Best regards
> Ulrich

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:33:23 +0200

> 6lowpans and (ii) whether the selection of the counters is suitable

How does an experiment show whether MIB modules are the _standard_ way
people will manage their 6lowpans? I do not know what it means to
manage a network with MIB modules. Nor do I know how to measure
'_standard_ way'.

A MIB module is a (standarized and well understood) formalism for
defining such protocol counters. What matters (as I keep saying) are
the semantics of the counters, how they relate to other counters and
finally their instrumentation in 6lowpan implementations. I would
prefer if the goal of the experiment is to determine whether the
counters are suitable and sufficient and to leave out (i).

/js

PS: I do understand that people think MIB module => SNMP and hence we
    better do not put MIB modules on a standards-track. However, the
    fact that there are lots of other helpful counters already defined
    in other MIB modules (IF-MIB, IP-MIB) makes this argument somewhat
    shortsighted if the alternative is to redo all the other countners
    as well.

-- 
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: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:57:46 -0700

Hi Jürgen,

see below:

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
<[email-masked]> wrote:
[...]
> counters are suitable and sufficient and to leave out (i).

Okay, that is fine with me. It would be very helpful if there was more
input from the Working Group on the subject; in particular, it would
help if at least those who supported publication also had some opinion
on the intended status of the document. It is difficult for Samita and
I to "guess" the WG's intention, based on the silence on this topic.

>     shortsighted if the alternative is to redo all the other countners

I understand that MIB modules are not necessarily tied to SNMP.

Samita and I are currently discussing this topic with Brian, and we
also want to start discussion with Barry Leiba and Benoit, to talk to
them upfront before the draft officially hits the IESG (where my
personal prior experience with MIB modules for constrained devices is
that it could hit a major roadblock).

Best regards
Ulrich

---

From: peter van der Stok <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:55:08 +0200

Hi Ulrich,

concerning:
"> It would be very helpful if there was more
> on the intended status of the document."

I was silently approving your suggestion. And more, I agree with the 
reasoning you used to motivate your choice.

Large scale experience is a sadly lacking commodity.
And probably: once the first experience is gained, people will look for 
ready-to-use management solutions. So, let's be prepared for that 
eventuality.

Additionally,
">> I would
>> counters are suitable and sufficient"

Again, I concur, with the additional attribute: which counters are 
superfluous.

Peter

Ulrich Herberg schreef op 2014-06-18 18:57:
> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 11:24:53 +0200

> that it could hit a major roadblock).

Note that these objects also apply to a gateway that connects to a
link using 6LoWPAN encapsulation.

/js

---

From: Samita Chakrabarti <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 01:27:20 +0000

Hi Juergen,

Are you planning to join the plugfest at the IETF90?

It'd be really great if you join the plugfest with your implementation irrespective of the status of the  draft (experimental or standard).

Folks have been talking about alternative ways of managing the management information - but I believe (without the chair hat) that there is value with the experiments and results you get.  Multiple solutions may be required for different scenarios.
And there has been lot of work and thoughts went behind 6lo-lowpan-mib document - so it would be beneficial if  it participates in a test event. 

Thanks,
-Samita

-----Original Message-----
From: 6lo [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:25 AM
To: Ulrich Herberg
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [6lo] Intended status of draft-ietf-6lo-lowpan-mib: Experimental?

> that it could hit a major roadblock).

Note that these objects also apply to a gateway that connects to a link using 6LoWPAN encapsulation.

/js

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:59:43 +0200

> It'd be really great if you join the plugfest with your implementation irrespective of the status of the  draft (experimental or standard).

Samita,

I just talked to Anuj and we agreed that we will prepare something we
can bring to Toronto and demo at the plugfest.

/js

---

From: Samita Chakrabarti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:50:19 +0000

Thank you Juergen!
-Samita

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 6:00 AM
To: Samita Chakrabarti
Cc: Ulrich Herberg; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [6lo] Intended status of draft-ietf-6lo-lowpan-mib: Experimental?

Samita,

I just talked to Anuj and we agreed that we will prepare something we can bring to Toronto and demo at the plugfest.

/js