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

Paul Duffy <paduffy@cisco.com> Wed, 04 November 2009 12:50 UTC

Return-Path: <paduffy@cisco.com>
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 807BE3A68AF for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 04:50:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 YozotSIJQl19 for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 04:50:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92B2C3A67A7 for <6lowapp@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 04:50:06 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAEcH8UqrR7Hu/2dsb2JhbADFKYEaCAGXF4Q9BIUI
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,680,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="424565248"
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Nov 2009 12:50:27 +0000
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nA4CoS1x015001; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:50:28 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:50:27 -0500
Received: from [10.86.251.40] ([10.86.251.40]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:50:27 -0500
Message-ID: <4AF17892.8040108@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:50:26 -0500
From: Paul Duffy <paduffy@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: nicolas.riou@fr.schneider-electric.com
References: <OF164C5409.51429B82-ONC1257663.007E96BE-C1257663.008109C1@schneider-electric.com>
In-Reply-To: <OF164C5409.51429B82-ONC1257663.007E96BE-C1257663.008109C1@schneider-electric.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Nov 2009 12:50:27.0534 (UTC) FILETIME=[623A66E0:01CA5D4D]
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
Reply-To: paduffy@cisco.com
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: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:50:07 -0000

I agree there is a need for more than request/response messaging, but 
WS_*  gives me pause for constrained devices and links. It is probably 
the most compute intensive, bandwidth hungry way to interface HAN-like 
endpoints.


>
> Hi Cullen,
>
>     >----- Message de Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> sur Sat, 31 
> Oct 2009 11:29:41 -0600 -----
>     >Pour:        arjun.lists@hsc.com
>     >cc:        Don Sturek <donsturek@grid2home.com>om>, 6lowapp@ietf.org
>     >Objet:        Re: [6lowapp] Proposed charter for 6LoWAPP BOF
>     >
>     >On Oct 29, 2009, at 12:11 , Arjun Roychowdhury wrote:
>     >
>     > ...
>     >OK - The way I want to try and derive us towards a decision here 
> is  
>     >get a list of candidate protocols then for each one ask the 
> yes/no is  
>     >the their agreement that we should do a mapping to that protocol. 
>  The  
>     >protocols I have heard so far are HTTP, SNMP,  SMTP. So two 
> questions
>     >
>     >1) what other protocols mapping should we do?
>
> The charter has significantly changed these days and I would like to 
> re-state the need for
> seamless interfacing between 6lowapp and the DPWS world. DPWS is a low 
> cost SOA solution at
> device level and will play a major role in future Building and 
> Industrial Automation systems
> (embedded in zone controllers, Automation servers, industrial 
> PLCs...). Besides, in some
> cases, native support of DPWS in VISTA and Windows 7 network explorer 
> might help in simplifying
> discovery and commissioning of devices.
> The HTTP REST model proposed in the new charter is sufficient for 
> simple get/set operations but
> I join Vlad Trifa when saying that there are requirements for more 
> than just request/response
> messaging patterns like e.g. publish/subscribe (multicast). IMO 
> seamless interfacing with WS_*
> (at least straightforward proxying) must be provided to ensure 
> efficient integration of 6lowpan networks
> in upcoming architectures.
>
> Regards.
> Nicolas
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowapp mailing list
> 6lowapp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp
>