<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hey,<br>
<br>
On 10/26/2014 03:50 AM, Moritz Warning wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I guess that ventures too munch into the
meta domain.<br>
Let's first try to get to a common ground without. :-)<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">For what it matters, we use this rather
minimal format:<br>
<br>
{<br>
"name" : "foobar",<br>
"firmware" : "ffbi-0.3",<br>
"community" : "somecity",<br>
"geo" : "52.02513078 8.55887",<br>
"links" : [<br>
{ "smac" : "b0:48:7a:f6:85:76", "dmac" :
"8c:21:0a:d8:af:2b", "qual" : 251 },<br>
{ "smac" : "2a:88:01:80:6b:93", "dmac" :
"ee:51:43:05:1f:ef", "qual" : 255 }<br>
],<br>
"clientcount" : 2<br>
}</blockquote>
<br>
Let's see.. we have name, firmware, geo, links and clientcount, it
looks like a node on a map web interface more than a network device,
is that the case?<br>
<br>
Something in common is probably "firmware" (even though in what we
proposed there's "os" and "os_version". Also, nothing should stop
anyone from mixing customs attributes with what we would come up
with.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/25/2014 11:54 PM, Jernej Kos
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:544C9A98.9020505@kos.mx" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hello!
Please also check out the nodewatcher-agent schema, which has an
implementation. The main difference to your proposed schema is that it
is not monolithic, but is modular, with each module's output being
versioned.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/wlanslovenija/nodewatcher-agent">https://github.com/wlanslovenija/nodewatcher-agent</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/interop-dev/network-device-schema/issues/1">https://github.com/interop-dev/network-device-schema/issues/1</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks for posting the full JSON here:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/interop-dev/network-device-schema/issues/1#issuecomment-60508259">https://github.com/interop-dev/network-device-schema/issues/1#issuecomment-60508259</a><br>
<br>
So, let me recap why I am doing this:<br>
<ul>
<li>everybody of us is using a different structure to represent
"stuff" in our networks</li>
<li>the "stuff" gets passed from app to app, sometimes changing
structure in apps of the same community</li>
<li>we don't have a clear definition of what that "stuff" is, a
geographic object? a server? a router? a link? all or some of
those?<br>
</li>
</ul>
What i think is achievable in a short time:<br>
<ul>
<li>define what a network device is<br>
</li>
<li>create a JSON schema to represent a network device only, we
can define other objects (eg: links) in future steps<br>
</li>
<li>start offering this format in our apps and software - we would
not have to give up what we currently use, we might offer both
formats if that is more convenient</li>
</ul>
<p>So I start asking you few questions.<br>
</p>
<p><b>1. </b>Have you ever felt the need of having a widely used
standard structure to represent network-devices?<br>
</p>
<p><b>2. </b>Do you agree with this definition?<br>
</p>
<p><i>A network device is any device which is connected to a layer2
or layer3 network and should provide some basic information</i>
(let's define what this minimum information is).<br>
</p>
<p><b>3. </b>Do you like the idea of starting small?<br>
</p>
Federico<br>
</body>
</html>