Subject: Re: [Dots] FW: Why is DOTS not using NETCONF/RESTCONF for management functions

From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 05:51:43 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dots [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 1:09 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Dots] FW: Why is DOTS not using NETCONF/RESTCONF for
> management functions
> 
> 
> Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) <[email-masked]> wrote:
>     > Yes, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reddy-dots-signal-channel-04
>     > uses COAP over (D)TLS, CBOR encoded payloads, (D)TLS 1.3 and (D)TLS 1.2
>     > profile for performance .
> 
> So, if your CBOR was derived from a YANG model, you'd be doing exactly
> NETCONF, btw.

In the revised draft https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reddy-dots-signal-channel-05 CBOR is derived from YANG model.

-Tiru

> And that activity happens at ID writing time, not runtime.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works  -
> = IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
>