IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lowapp] Proposed charter for 6LoWAPP BOF

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 05 November 2009 05:59 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: 6lowapp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowapp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 326943A6781 for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:59:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K7byY9COcNm1 for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:59:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9:209:3dff:fe00:7136]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2489B3A63EC for <6lowapp@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:59:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nA55xcUl010993; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:59:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.217.101] (p5489FD43.dip.t-dialin.net [84.137.253.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A985B712; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:59:38 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <6BB19374-5B51-447C-9CFF-DEACCE595312@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:59:36 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <772085F9-B72B-47D9-876F-13F90B86464F@tzi.org>
References: <OF164C5409.51429B82-ONC1257663.007E96BE-C1257663.008109C1@schneider-electric.com> <4AF17892.8040108@cisco.com> <0D212BD466921646B58854FB79092CEC9D15C2@XMB-AMS-106.cisco.com> <4AF1AD4C.5080908@gridmerge.com> <6BB19374-5B51-447C-9CFF-DEACCE595312@cs.columbia.edu>
To: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076)
Cc: 6lowapp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lowapp] Proposed charter for 6LoWAPP BOF
X-BeenThere: 6lowapp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Application protocols for constrained nodes and networks <6lowapp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp>, <mailto:6lowapp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowapp>
List-Post: <mailto:6lowapp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lowapp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp>, <mailto:6lowapp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:59:32 -0000

On Nov 4, 2009, at 23:00, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> We seem to be conflating a number of different constraints:
> - low bandwidth
> - low computational capabilities (CPU, memory)
> - lossy links

Let's add (again, for some, not all nodes in the mix):

-- constraints on power (sleeping nodes)
    -- preference for node-initiated communication
-- constraints on networking
    -- payloads beyond 50-70 bytes cause expensive/lossy fragmentation
    -- no IP multicast (except for a narrow radio range)

CoAP is not aimed at high-power, high-bitrate nodes such as WiFi  
cameras.
(CoAP might indeed help those WiFi cameras with talking to, say,  
additional PIR motion sensors or door/window sensors.)
HANs/BANs will certainly use a mixture of protocols, and e.g. RTP plus  
some control protocol (SIP, XMPP) may be fine for a camera.

Gruesse, Carsten

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email