Re: [6lowapp] BOF proposal: update

[Zach Shelby <[e-mail]>]

Brian,

Brian Frank wrote:
> Couple of my thoughts to echo what some others have said:
>
> - I believe the application protocol should be format agnostic.  I 
> suspect that it will be difficult to achieve consensus on data formats. 
> I am not sure how that might limit the scope of 6lowapp, but certainly I 
> hope that a debate on formats doesn't derail the transport protocol itself

I totally agree, and this is one important thing we try to make clear in 
the charter. The application protocol must support common MIME types and 
encodings, and be easily extensible. For example, your proposal in 
Section 2.5 of draft-frank-6lowapp-chopan-00 is one very good way of 
doing it.

> - I personally believe that naming should be based on URIs; however it 
> seems as this is already presumed as a requirement? 

Yes, definitely. As URIs are string based and often quite long, we 
should also figure out a way to compress them as well.

> - just to echo what David said, I read the BOF to say that adaption of 
> HTTP (as proposed by myself) is off the table.  But I think the intent 
> was just that we must define some subset of REST functionality can be 
> implemented efficiently?

Exactly! Just drop the word HTTP from draft-frank-6lowapp-chopan-00 and 
that is a good start. The core REST functionality is exactly what we 
need to enable the embedded web.

> 
> - sleeping nodes are mentioned a couple times already, but I'd just like 
> to re-iterate that I believe sleeping nodes are perhaps the most 
> important problem space for 6lowapp (or least a peer to the problem 
> space of computing/memory/bandwidth constraints)

Yes. One other thing we need to mention is that peer-to-peer 
interactions between nodes is also important. A client-server only 
approach won't do here. In building automation P2P is a big MUST. There 
is a building automation requirements ID being written right now - which 
will surely point that out well.

- Zach

> Brian
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     We used the last week to discuss the BOF proposal with our responsible
>     AD and with people from other standards groups.
> 
>     The result is a revised BOF proposal, that already provides an outline
>     for the charter of the new WG.  This charter now defines a more
>     specific focus for the WG til the end of 2010.  I think that is good
>     because the IETF is much better in handling focused, specific work
>     items than in grand, boil-the-ocean efforts.  If we succeed, we can
>     always recharter to attack additional items.
> 
>     A bit more background: The goal of this BOF proposal is to get a BOF
>     going in Hiroshima, the week of Nov 9.  The goal of the BOF is to
>     demonstrate that we have enough interest ("energy") and enough focus
>     to solve a credible problem in a defined amount of time; this will
>     enable us to charter a WG following the BOF.  Not all of you will be
>     physically present in Hiroshima; that's another reason why it is
>     important to hear your opinions on this mailing list.  The charter
>     proposal can and will change until Hiroshima, and now is the time to
>     influence it and to express your support.  Also, the IETF is generally
>     driven by Internet-Draft documents, so it would be good to hear on the
>     list what you will be able to contribute.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.