[Interop-dev] Round 2: Network Device Config JSON Schema

[Nemesis]

Hey guys, I took one hour to write something and it took you minutes to
answer. I find your answers arrogant and disrespectful. I would like the
discussion to go back to normal terms and I'd like us to understand each
other needs.

I'll continue below.

On 11/05/2014 12:21 PM, Mitar wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> We said that we are not trying to do something too broad and that's
>> great but we also should not limit too much its scope, immagine this:
>>
>> virtual devices, linux containers. Someone might develop a system where
>> you can configure the ram, disk space and other things.
> Are we then the right group of people to define something as general as
> this? Wouldn't then be better to look in how OpenStack if configuring
> their devices and use that?

We might very well do that, I know a friend who is now contributing
actively and I can request his help to know more about what kind of
format do they use and if there is anything better.

> Why then try to define anything specific for
> mesh/wireless nodes?

Because that's our specific use case, no?

>> I would like this schema to be able to represent the attributes of
>> something that it is reachable via a layer2 or layer3 network, even a
>> virtual-device (immagine hardware unit testing),
> Yes, we can try to define a schema which can be for anything: WiFi
> enabled watches, Internet of Things sensors, smart kitchen appliances.
> All that can be connected to the network this days.
>
> So let's define a schema which will contain a field for configuring the
> temperature of my networked microwave oven.

Do not exagerate my words. I wrote that it should be not too broad.

> Or maybe we should limit to thing we do and use now?

Yes we should, and something I need right now is a schema that is able
to tell me information like cpu, ram, and so on.

>
>> after all the discussion I think this schema should have a static
>> part (what we are doing right now) and a "dynamic" part that is
>> dedicated to attributes that change rapidly over time (what we before
>> called the monitoring/telemetry data), pheraphs the two might be used
>> either together in a single object or separately, that would also be
>> very useful.
> I think we are getting again into same direction why we failed to define
> such a common schema so many times until now. We tried to do too much. I
> would say that just defining few common types would be an achievement.
> Do we use an UUID to uniquely represent a network device? What other
> common field types can we think about. Let's do that first.

I was not implying that we should define everything, just that we should
make it possible to have a few attributes that do not necessary mean
that they can be changed by some software.

>
>> But it would be VERY useful to MANY people, not just us doing community
>> networks, if this schema included also (with optional attributes)
>> information like ram, disk space, cpu and other attributes that are not
>> strictly related to the fact that you can change its configuration.
> Yes yes. But then, why don't we maybe just don't try to reinvent the
> wheel hundreds of researches of Internet of things are doing at the
> moment? I think if you want so generic thing, then we should move this
> discussion to schema.org discussion, or some other relevant mailing
> list. Because then it is bigger than us.

That would be awsome, but i wouldn't do that before we do some first
rounds here in order to get what we need first. That process might be
done in a separate step, why do everything in one step?

> There are so many people already working on this. Even SNMP itself and
> schemas used in SNMP are an example.

Indeed the information represented here is something I'm also extracting
via SNMP.

But is there a known and widely adopted JSON schema already? If yes
please provide information.

>
>> By allowing this flexibility we can lay the ground for something that
>> could be used by many people, and if many libraries and softwares that
>> deal with networks start using a common schema it will mean that the
>> resulting eco system will be richer, which would be very good for everyone.
> Yes, let's define a non-industry standard for all this while there are
> probably industry standards already.

"Probably"? I have been looking for this for a while.

I don't want to reinvent the wheel.

Is there a JSON schema that is already being used by few softwares that
deal with networks?

I thought that every software implemented its own JSON API, XML or
whatever, but I might be wrong. It would be much better if you provided
some links or some background info.

> This will be definitely be helpful.

This tone used in these situations is surely not helpful.