[Interop-dev] Round 3 Network Device Config JSON Schema

[Henning Rogge]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Nemesis <(spam-protected)> wrote:
> Updated github:
> https://github.com/interop-dev/network-device-schema/commit/8bb8d21f122788ff7481422ab8a9798bb46aa31e
>
> Forgive me if I'm pushing ahead even if I got no feedback to the latest
> questions. We can do it now though.
>
> I thought it would be good to start a new iteration.
>
> I have a few questions:
>
> are you ok with renaming the section "software" to "os" and having the three
> keys "name", "release" and "version"? If not please think also about an
> alternative

I still think "software" is better, because we can re-use the software
section in a different context, e.g. for the version of the routing
protocol.

> what should the possible values of "encryption" in a wireless interface be?
Maybe "security" instead of encryption? There is more to the security
of a wifi interface than the algorithm.

> "none" or do you prefer false (boolean)?
> "wep"
> "wpa"
> "wpa2"
> "802.1x"
> others?

I think it can be a little bit more complicated:
http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/uci/wireless#wpa.modes

we have the difference between tkip and ccmp... the difference between
"shared key" and enterprise... and even the mixed modes, which allow
multiple options.

Not sure how much of this should be visible in the JSON API.

> in case encryption is different than none, shall we start mapping this type
> of config now or shall we delay it to a later moment?
>
> are you ok with renaming output_power in tx_power in a radio physical
> device?

tx_power sounds better for me.

> are you ok with renaming the attribute "router_id" to "router" in the
> "routing_protocols" section for better consistency with what we are doing
> between "device" and "physical_devices"?
> If not please think also about an alternative

I would like router_id more... its called differently for every
protocol, but its always an identifier (most times its an IP address).

Henning Rogge