inline
On 03/01/14 17:41, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
Hi Bert,
thank you for your kind review. See below.
Cheers,
Mehmet
-----Original Message-----
From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Bert Wijnen
(IETF)
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 9:55 AM
To: opsawg >> "[email protected]"
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Call for reviewers of draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-*
My review of the coman documents.
I am not well versed in these spaces, so take that into account.
Reading the use cases I got a bit annoyed by the military discussion.
I am a pacifist, so don't really want to review/discuss military needs
or requirements. Oh well....
I am also not very familiar with the uses cases of intelligent meters,
factory automation/monitoring, health care devices monitoring and being
remotely managed.
It is interesting reading, and I learned a lot, but I cannot evaluate
if they represent real scenarios or are detailed anough. Also can I not
evaluate if they are exhaustive.
So I focused on the requirements.
Good list of requirements to start with I think. I have some questions:
- for requirement 4.2.0001
I wonder why a C0 device would have to implement in a modular fashion.
I could see that a C0 device (Maybe even C1) does the minimal
modular-function-set implementation, but that the impleementation is in
fact monolythic. It often save memory and possibly cpu cycles.
I wonder how you define the "minimal modular-function-set". Isn't this already
a decision?
The draft avoids defining function sets to be used. I assume different vendors
will provide
different monolithic devices.
There is two things that (in my view are/can be modular:
- the implementation
- the specification
EVen if the specification is "modular", even then someone can chose to
implement it as a monolythic program/process I would think. And often that can
save memory usage.
- for requirement 4.9.001
It might be good to add a refereence to RFC2914 ??
Just thinking aloud.
Yes, RFC2914 is indeed interesting reference to add.
- for requirement 4.9.003
is that more or less an "implementation" suggestion for requirement 4.9.001
??
You are right. It could be seen as such.
However, there might be different reasons why people would want to reduce the
amount of traffic in the network.
Congestion is one of them. One can also begin acting before congestion happens.
WDYT?
OK, maybe add a line of text about that then. IN my view it looked like
basically twice the
same requirement. But if you define it this way, then it can be seen as a
different requirement
may be.
Bert
See you all in the neaw year, which I hope is prosperous for you all.
See you!!! Happy New Year!!
Cheers,
Mehmet
Bert
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
