Dear all: I did not get any comment on the proposed change (below). I’m willing to assume it’s good news. If you disagree please let it be known now. Thomas and I will meet this week and conclude.
“Produce an Information Model containing the management requirements of a 6TiSCH node. A data model mapping for an existing protocol (such as Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) over the Constrained Application …” Would become “Produce a Data Model expressed in YANG and enabling the management of the 6top sublayer. A mapping for an existing protocol (such as Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) over the Constrained Application … “ Cheers, Pascal From: 6tisch [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert) Sent: vendredi 29 janvier 2016 17:50 To: Qin Wang <[email protected]>; Brian Haberman <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [6tisch] information model or data model in the new charter I agree Qin; “Produce an Information Model containing the management requirements of a 6TiSCH node. A data model mapping for an existing protocol (such as Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) over the Constrained Application …” Would become “Produce a Data Model expressed in Yand and enabling the management of the 6top sublayer. A mapping for an existing protocol (such as Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) over the Constrained Application … “ Note that I reduced the scope of the data model to the 6ttop piece. Is that what we want ? Pascal From: Qin Wang [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: vendredi 29 janvier 2016 16:49 To: Brian Haberman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [6tisch] information model or data model in the new charter Hi Brain, Pascal and all, I think both what we actually did in the current 6top-interface draft, and what we are going to redo as Thomas and Xavi suggested in the last Webex, are Yang date model of 6top, instead of information model. Thus, I think we need to re-word the Charter accordingly. Make sense? In addition, the attached file presents clear definition on both interface model and Yang model. Thanks Qin On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 2:48 PM, Brian Haberman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Pascal, On 1/27/16 2:38 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Hello Brian and Qin: > > We discussed that at the time of the first charter, using RFC 3444 as > our reference; it is my understanding that we aimed the 6top > interface document > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-interface at > providing a Yang Data model to manage the 6top layer in a device. It > is my understanding that some form of information model in natural > language would be present in the 6top draft, but my reading of the > 6top interface is that there is some degree of information model > there too, that explains the data model. If so, is that a problem? I don't think the problem is in a *document*. Benoit is questioning the wording of the proposed charter. I would suggest reviewing his comments in light of the current wording of the new charter text. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-6tisch/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-6tisch/ballot/#benoit-claise Regards, Brian > > Cheers, > > Pascal > >> -----Original Message----- From: 6tisch >> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf >> Of Brian Haberman Sent: >> lundi 25 janvier 2016 14:11 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: >> [6tisch] information model or data model in the new charter >> >> Hi Qin, >> >> On 1/22/16 3:30 PM, Qin Wang wrote: >>> Dear all, In today's Webex meeting, we were talking about the >>> feedback from Bonoit about the new Charter, see [6tisch] Benoit >>> Claise's No Objection on charter-ietf-6tisch-01-00: (with >>> COMMENT), and want to continue the discussion in the ML. The >>> question is what is exactly we want to do with Yang model, and >>> how to make the paragraph about Yang model in the new Charter >>> more accurate. Any comments and suggestion is welcome. ThanksQin >>> >> >> This issue needs to get resolved before I will release the charter >> for external review. Benoit's point illustrated an issue in the >> charter where it is not clear as to whether the WG is interested in >> an information model or a data model. >> >> Regards, Brian _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
