I agree with Jürgen that it would be useful to maintain currently defined data models (in SMI and YANG). The protocol exchanging the actual data could be a different one if we conclude that SNMP/NETCONF are unsuitable for constrained environments. I remember that in one of the unofficial COMAN meetings, we discussed the possibility to port RESTCONF (draft-bierman-netconf-restconf-04) to COAP instead of HTTP. That would be one option to reuse existing Yang models. And possibly MIB modules via RFC 6643.
Best regards Ulrich On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < [email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 02:53:13PM +0200, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > after I listened to Juergen's presentation in the CORE working group at > > the last IETF meeting about 'constrained management' I was wondering > > about the following aspect: > > > > More and more devices (specifically IoT devices) come with a built-in > > software update mechanism (even at different levels). For example, you > > can see firmware update mechanisms, the ability to update individual > > files (if there is a file system), or package managers being used. > > There is a wide range of different device classes. I do not believe > that package managers are generally available on all device classes. > In a nutshell, there are the really constrained devices (see LWIG > terminology) and then there are devices with sufficient resources to > run an embedded Linux or BSD kernels. A file system and package > managers sound to me you are assuming the later. > > > The configuration data and the code is often treated in the same way and > > also updated using the same style (to better deal with the constrained > > nature of these devices). > > Reference? > > > I am wondering what the role of traditional network management protocols > > actually is. > > > > Why would I add, let's say, SNMP to my IoT device to configure the > > device or to retrieve sensor information when I anyway have to provide a > > software update mechanism together with some application layer protocol > > (like CoAP)? > > What matters most is reuse of data models. How you ship the data > depends on many criteria. All I can say (since we did implement SNMP) > is that SNMP works reasonably well on constrained devices. But yes, if > you live in a CoAP world, you may prefer to ship data via CoAP (once > you have worked out the details). What would be a failure in my view > is to redo the data models. > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
