Subject: [Roll] [roll] #166 (applicability-home-building): Manageability

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 22:14:39 -0000

#166: Manageability

 Yvonne-Anne Pignolet:
 About Section 6, why would manageability be out of scope for home
 network scenarios? And can you give more detail on what central
 control based on MIBs entails?

 Peter van der Stok:
 I think the whole discussion on how home networks are managed is still on
 going.
 And what to manage is also not clear. For example: will the ISP set the
 RPL parameter values in the nodes in my home and acquire statistics on
 packet fragmentation?

 In building automation, setting configuration parameters seems necessary
 (for example the MPL parameter values). Some people think this should be
 done via DHCP. So removing the last phrase of section 6 will improve the
 clarity.

 Yvonne-Anne Pignolet:
 In this case it would be good to mention that home network management is
 still under discussion.

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |      Owner:  draft-ietf-roll-
  [email-masked]      |  applicability-home-
     Type:  enhancement              |  [email-masked]
 Priority:  trivial                  |     Status:  new
Component:  applicability-home-      |  Milestone:
  building                           |    Version:
 Severity:  In WG Last Call          |   Keywords:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/166>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>

---

From: peter van der Stok <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:58:54 +0100

HI Yvonne,

we propose the following text for section 6.
At this moment it is not clear how homenets will be managed. 
Consequently it is not clear which tools will be used and which 
parameters must be exposed for management.
In building control, management is mandatory. It is expected that 
installations will be managed using the set of currently available tools 
(including IETF tools like MIBS, NETCONF modules, DHCP and others) with 
large differences between the ways an installation is managed.

Greetings,

Peter

---

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:59:56 -0000

#166: Manageability

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed

Comment:

 we propose the following text for section 6.
 At this moment it is not clear how homenets will be managed. Consequently
 it is not clear which tools will be used and which parameters must be
 exposed for management.
 In building control, management is mandatory. It is expected that
 installations will be managed using the set of currently available tools
 (including IETF tools like MIBS, NETCONF modules, DHCP and others) with
 large differences between the ways an installation is managed.

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:  draft-ietf-roll-
  [email-masked]      |  applicability-home-
     Type:  enhancement              |  [email-masked]
 Priority:  trivial                  |      Status:  closed
Component:  applicability-home-      |   Milestone:
  building                           |     Version:
 Severity:  In WG Last Call          |  Resolution:  fixed
 Keywords:                           |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/166#comment:1>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>