Definition of Managed Objects for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)
draft-ietf-6lo-lowpan-mib-04

[Ballot comment]

- Section 4 - is "typically used" for the CoAP etc stack in
Figure 1 really correct or a sort of wishful thinking?

- Figure 1 - why no RFC numbers on the left hand side?

- FWIW, Figure 2 doesn't tell me anything really. But not
suggesting you change unless there are loads of similarly
challenged folks in addition to me:-)

[Ballot comment]
For the record (this is a COMMENT, not a DISCUSS, even if I've been hesitating a lot), I'm not happy about the intended status of this document.
Note that this is in line with Adrian's COMMENT on why SNMP for constrained devices.

I was asked to provide my feedback a few months ago regarding the intended status, and was pushing for EXPERIMENTAL if the document organization remained the same.

First of all, the charter mentions:

    2. Information and data models (e.g., MIB modules) for these
    adaptation layers for basic monitoring and troubleshooting.

So what is this document focusing on? An information model or a data model (read MIB module). As it is right now, clearly the latter.
This document could have focused on a information model, and providing the MIB module as an example. Such a document with title "Information Model Specification for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)" would be fine with PS intented status.

Second, will constrained devices be managed via SNMP? At this point in time I don't know, but my gut feeling tells me that it won't be the case.
So this document sends the wrong message to the industry.
It's true (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lo/current/msg00561.html) that:

    But as Jürgen pointed out correctly to me, the MIB module itself is just an API (similar to the IP MIB module), not necessarily tied to SNMP, and the data model itself is useful.

This is a subtle way to say: I specify a MIB module, but consider it as an information model, so SNMP might not be used by constrained devices.
This is way too subtle. And yes, I've seen that sentence:

  While a MIB module provides a direct binding for accessing data via
  the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) [RFC3410], supporting
  SNMP may not always be affordable on constrained devices.  Other
  protocols to access data modeled in MIB modules are possible and
  proposals have been made recently to provide bindings to the
  Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252].


The two reasons why it's not a DISCUSS are
- Brian mentioned to me: "there was a discussion during the 6lo session in Toronto where the consensus changed on what the status should be."
- This set of counters is easy to map to a different data model language.

To summarize: unhappy about the intended status, but will not go against the WG consensus!

[Ballot comment]
I wondered the same thing Kathleen is wondering about devices that wouldn't be running SNMPv3.

I also wondered if there was any guidance for devices that don't run SMTP at all.

If you choose to say anything about Kathleen's question, you might think about text that would also be applicable for a device being managed over CoAP.

[Ballot comment]
I wondered the same thing Kathleen is wondering about devices that wouldn't be running SNMPv3.

I also wondered if there was any guidance for devices that don't run SMTP at all.

If you choose to say anything about Kathleen's question, you might think in terms available of text that would also be applicable for a device being managed over CoAP as well.

[Ballot comment]
I wondered the same thing Kathleen is wondering about devices that wouldn't be running SNMPv3.

I also wondered if there was any guidance for devices that don't run SMTP at all. The guidance in the draft is fairly SMTP-specific. If you choose to say anything about Kathleen's question, you might think in terms available of text that would also be applicable for a device being managed over CoAP as well.

[Ballot comment]
I wondered the same thing Kathleen is wondering about devices that wouldn't be running SNMPv3..

I also wondered if there was any guidance for devices that don't run SMTP at all. The guidance in the draft is fairly SMTP-specific. If you choose to say anything about Kathleen's question, you might think in terms available of text that would also be applicable for a device being managed over CoAP as well.

[Ballot comment]
I am fine with the security considerations of this draft, but do have a question.  Is it practical to have a strong recommendation for SNMPv3 for the constrained devices for which this draft is intended?  I of course like the considerations, but if it's not practical for SNMPv3 and the additional security provided to be enabled, that would be good to know.  If it is, that's great. Thanks.

[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to the publication of this document, but here are a few thoughts you might want to factor in before publication.

---

Of course, I have to ask the question: why a MIB module? As noted in the
Introduction, SNMP might not be a good choice in a constrained
environment and a different protocol might be used to carry MIB data.
Why, if SNMP might be abandoned, do you continue to consider a MIB
module instead of going straight to YANG? You presumably are dealing
with a new class of device that does not have SNMP or ASN.1 support.
I don't think that the previous MIB modules listed in Section 4 actually
provide justification because I doubt that this new class of device
includes the MIB support as listed.

I suppose my question is really: Who has made the decision about how
objects will be managed in 6LowPANs? Is this a documented decision or
are we sleepwalking to MIB modules?

---
               
Not sure "IMPORTS" should be in upper case in Section 5.

---

I don't think
      ORGANIZATION
          "Jacobs University Bremen"
is correct.
Maybe "IETF" or the 6lo working group?

---

      DESCRIPTION
          "Initial version, published as RFC XXXX."
      -- RFC Ed.: replace XXXX with RFC number and remove this note

      ::= { mib-2 XXXX }

You need an editor note for this second XXXX.
Of course, it would save some confusion if you used different letters
for different meanings.

---

I don't find any discussion of wrapping. i know you have relatively low
throughput devices, but I consider a device with multiple interfaces and
that you have used counter32 (correctly, IMHO). One packet per second
would wrap at 136 years. So 12 packets per second on each of 12
interfaces would wrap in one year (if my maths is working today).

IMHO you do not need larger counters, but you do need to add some text
to describe wrapping and consider a discontinuity timer. (Actually, you
probably need a discontinuity timer anyway.)

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-6lo-lowpan-mib-03.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is
a single action which IANA must complete.

In the SMI Network Management MGMT Codes Internet-standard MIB sub-registry (iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2 [1.3.6.1.2.1])
of the Network Management Parameters registry at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers

a new MIB will be registered as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD by IANA at time of registration ]
Name: LOWPAN-MIB
Description: IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks Protocol
References: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands this to be the only action required of IANA upon
approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 

Please note that IANA cannot reserve specific values. However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: <6lo@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Definition of Managed Objects for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 over Networks of
Resource-constrained Nodes WG (6lo) to consider the following document:
- 'Definition of Managed Objects for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless
  Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-08-22. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
  for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
  In particular, it defines objects for managing IPv6 over Low-Power
  Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs).




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-lowpan-mib/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-lowpan-mib/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

        Publication as Proposed Standard is requested. This is indicated in the title
        page header.

        This document defines a MIB module for reading counters of the 6lowpan
        adaptation layer. MIB modules are well-defined standard interfaces for
        management. The document describes how the MIB module fits into the
        IoT stack together with other Standard Track MIB modules on different
        layers. The list of counters defined in this document has WG consensus.
        Implementations for constrained devices have been demonstrated at the
        plugfest at IETF90, showing the feasibility for using MIB modules for
        constrained devices. The document points out that MIB modules are not
        necessarily tied to SNMP, and that other protocols may be used to read
        the counters defined in this document, if SNMP has too much overhead
        in order to be used on very constrained devices.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:
        This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
        for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
        In particular, it defines objects for managing IPv6 over Low-Power
        Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs).


Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

        There were no particular points of contention in the WG process, and the
        consensus behind publication of this document as a Standards Track RFC
        appears solid.

Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

        There is at least one implementation of the specification using SNMP to
        read counters of a constrained device using the 6lowpan adaptation layer.
        This implementation has been demonstrated at the plugfest of IETF90.
        There have been good discussions of the document among the WG participants,
        in general.
        There have been no specific MIB doctor, Media Type or other expert reviews
        done. The main editor is himself a MIB doctor.

Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

        The Document Shepherd is Ulrich Herberg.
        The Responsible Area Director is Brian Haberman.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

        The document shepherd has reviewed this document, both as part of the
        WG process, and prior to the issuance of the Publication Request.
        The document shepherd believes that this version of the document is
        ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

        The document shepherd has no concerns with the depth or
        breadth of the reviews of this document.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

        This document does not need reviews beyond those normally done during
        AD and IESG processing.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

        The document shepherd has no specific concerns with this document.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

        Each author has confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR requiring
        disclosure.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

        No IPR disclosures have been filed, referencing this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

        While the chairs had to solicit more feedback during the initial WG LC,
        several WG participants then supported publication on the mailing list.
        In addition, there was a good discussion about the draft at IETF90 with
        multiple additional supporters (and no opponents).
        Therefore, the shepherd concludes that the WG consensus behind this document
        appears solid.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

        No appeals have been threatened.
        No extreme discontent has been indicated.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

        IDNIT returns several minor warnings. The shepherd will make sure that
        these will be fixed together with any comments received during AD evaluation
        and IETF LC.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

        This document has been edited by a MIB doctor. If considered necessary, another
        MIB doctor can review the document in addition.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

        All references have been identified as either normative or informative.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

        All normative references are to already published RFC at the same,
        or on a higher, maturity level.

        All informative references are to already published RFC at the same,
        or on a higher, maturity level.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

        There are no downward references.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

        This document does not change the status of any existing RFCs.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

        The document shepherd has reviewed the IANA considerations section, which
        is both consistent with the body of the document.

Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.

        This is confirmed.

Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.

        All referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.

Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

        This document does not create any new IANA registries.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

        This document does not create any new IANA registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

        The shepherd has reviewed the MIB module and in addition verified it
        with "smilint".