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

[Zach Shelby <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Nov 1, 2009, at 15:55 , Don Sturek wrote:

> Hi Zach,
>
> I am still hoping we don't have a proxy (or gateway).  Ideally, we can
> define at least an application transport protocol that can work  
> natively in
> CoAp and be mainstream enough to be supported in the wider internet.
>

I think we agree. The CoAP protocol (whatever it will be) could  
definitely be used on the wider Internet. If your controlling device/ 
server speaks CoAP, then voi la. If we do our job well, and this  
becomes standard for M2M use, then you will easily find CoAP support.

> As soon as we say there is a proxy or gateway required, we will get  
> pushback
> from device manufacturers who don't want the added cost on their  
> devices.

This definitely should not require a proxy, but as pointed out in  
other mails, there are reasons you may use proxy technology. Even if  
you would implement this with plain HTTP/1.1 you would use a proxy in  
most cases. But this isn't an issue for device manufacturers by any  
means! As we are dealing with IP, a proxy may be located on the  
backend network somewhere e.g. as a component on  any application  
server.

On the flip-side, if we require embedded devices to speak directly  
with unmodified HTTP/1.1 web servers, then we really will be adding  
cost, if it even works at all. This is the situation today, and the  
reason for so many proprietary protocol and field-bus solutions.

It sounds like we basically agree here?

Zach

>
> Don
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zach Shelby [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 5:52 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [6lowapp] Proposed charter for 6LoWAPP BOF
>
> On Nov 1, 2009, at 2:15 , Don Sturek wrote:
>
>> Hi Cullen,
>>
>> One important use case to consider:
>> 1)  Devices to manage are running on 6LowPAN (using some 6LowAPP
>> defined
>> protocol).   Controlling devices are running someplace on the wider
>> internet.
>
> This is common in building management and most M2M applications as  
> well.
>
>> 2)  Does this mean that the scope of protocol work in 6LowAPP needs  
>> to
>> identify this type of control as a valid use case?
>
> Definitely! However we don't need to require the controlling device to
> speak CoAP (although it could). More likely there is a proxy somewhere
> between.
>
>> 3)  Does the use of 6LowAPP protocols on the wider internet need to
>> then be
>> in the scope of 6LowAPP?
>
> Yes. This is IP, so the CoAP protocol can be used over any IP
> networks. If you need a proxy, it can be located anywhere. We should
> assume that CoAP will mainly be used in the constrained or  
> application-
> specific domain.
>
> Zach
>
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>> Behalf
>> Of Cullen Jennings
>> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:29 AM
>> To: Jukka Manner
>> Cc: Don Sturek; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [6lowapp] Proposed charter for 6LoWAPP BOF
>>
>>
>> On Oct 29, 2009, at 8:20 , Jukka Manner wrote:
>>
>>> 1. This seems to indicate that 6lowapp will not be tied to any
>>> existing work, it will work on its own goals, but in collaboration
>>> with others (which is somewhat open as what it means). I would have
>>> expected that 6lowapp would specifically look at existing work in
>>> related WGs and see how build on top of that.
>>
>> My mistake - I did not mean to imply that it was not layered on top  
>> of
>> closely related existing work. I think most people assumed that this
>> would run on top of a LoPAN but it seemed they also wanted it to be
>> able to run on top of a other things including a normal IP LAN and
>> WAN. Clearly this is all about same use cases as 6LoPAN and ties
>> closing with 6LoPAN and ROLL as well as work going on at many other
>> SDOs. However, I'm not sure what needs to be said. Are WG drafts with
>> use case / requirements from other WG that we should be referencing?
>> Give me ideas on what things you were thinking here. Clearly the IESG
>> would not be keen on chartering a new WG to do something another WG
>> was already charted to do - repeating work in two places seldom ends
>> well :-) Can you suggest some specific text for the charter that you
>> think would have fairly wide consent and captures what you are  
>> looking
>> for here?
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 6lowapp mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 6lowapp mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp
>
> -- 
> http://www.sensinode.com
> http://zachshelby.org - My blog "On the Internet of Things"
> Mobile: [phone]
>
> Zach Shelby
> Head of Research
> Sensinode Ltd.
> Kidekuja 2
> 88610 Vuokatti, FINLAND
>
> This e-mail and all attached material are confidential and may contain
> legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient,
> please contact the sender and delete the e-mail from your system
> without producing, distributing or retaining copies thereof.
>
>
>
>

-- 
http://www.sensinode.com
http://zachshelby.org - My blog “On the Internet of Things”
Mobile: [phone]

Zach Shelby
Head of Research
Sensinode Ltd.
Kidekuja 2
88610 Vuokatti, FINLAND

This e-mail and all attached material are confidential and may contain  
legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient,  
please contact the sender and delete the e-mail from your system  
without producing, distributing or retaining copies thereof.