Subject: [6tsch] Fwd: [6lo] [coman] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo)

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 17:52:22 +0000

Expéditeur: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: 27 septembre 2013 19:44:37 UTC+2
Destinataire: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, The IESG <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, 6lo WG <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Objet: Rép : [6lo] [coman] WG Review: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo)

On 9/26/13 11:58 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:

OLD:
2. Related MIB modules

Hmm:
2. Related interfaces for management applications (e.g., MIB modules)

NEW:
2. Related MIB modules (including, where applicable, management data models using other established IETF management data modeling schemes).

Carsten,

*If* the WG and the IESG want the broader scope, then I'd suggest explicitly mentioning Yang models instead of the "other established ..." wording. A key question would be whether such models would cover config and operational data.

A more radical approach would be to (gasp!), only do Yang even for operational data. It is easy to map Yang to a RESTful API (see draft-bierman-netconf-yang-api) which might fit nicely with CoAP.
But not doing SMIv2 models might be too radical?

  Erik

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