+1 El feb 1, 2016 9:03 AM, "Tom Phinney" <[email protected]> escribió:
> +1 > === > On 2016.02.01 07:58, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > > 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] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > *Sent:* vendredi 29 janvier 2016 17:50 > *To:* Qin Wang <[email protected]> <[email protected]>; Brian > Haberman <[email protected]> <[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] <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* vendredi 29 janvier 2016 16:49 > *To:* Brian Haberman <[email protected]>; Pascal Thubert > (pthubert) <[email protected]>; [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]> 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]] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman Sent: > >> lundi 25 janvier 2016 14:11 To: [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] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 6tisch mailing [email protected]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch > > > > _______________________________________________ > 6tisch mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch > >
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
