Re: [6lowapp] Next rev of CoRE Charter

JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com> Wed, 03 February 2010 07:41 UTC

Return-Path: <jvasseur@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 93F563A686E for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:41:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.541
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 ZFq1OpjHkZo3 for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:41:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 674FB3A68B5 for <6lowapp@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:41:19 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAGa3aEtAZnwN/2dsb2JhbADAbZgyhEUE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,397,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="83690560"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2010 07:42:00 +0000
Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o137fx3G009194; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 07:41:59 GMT
Received: from xfe-ams-201.cisco.com ([144.254.231.95]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 08:41:58 +0100
Received: from ams-jvasseur-8712.cisco.com ([10.55.201.131]) by xfe-ams-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 08:41:58 +0100
Message-Id: <42445BF6-C0A7-489D-AFD0-26B5685850DA@cisco.com>
From: JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <75CED471-D0E5-46B0-AC6B-D67349007E9B@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:41:58 +0100
References: <2A7B1CDC-5B99-47E8-9331-039D5997E1CC@cisco.com> <DFC50C8B-D84B-43E6-9691-503CC840ED5B@cisco.com> <75CED471-D0E5-46B0-AC6B-D67349007E9B@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2010 07:41:58.0997 (UTC) FILETIME=[5DDF0850:01CAA4A4]
Cc: 6lowapp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lowapp] Next rev of CoRE Charter
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: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 07:41:20 -0000

Hi Carsten,

On Feb 3, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:

>> 1) I would suggest to first try to adopt a common "language" across  
>> Working
>> Groups. In ROLL, we use the term LLN to refer to Low power and  
>> Lossy Networks.
>> Using similar terminology could help.
>
> While LLN are one class of a constrained network, I believe the  
> focus of CoRE should be a bit wider and narrower at the same time.   
> E.g., there may be little reason not to run CoAP on simple nodes  
> connected by RS-485-style networks, even if we don't have a single  
> standard way to map IP onto them right now.  On the other hand, some  
> nodes on an LLN way be able to run HTTP with good results.
>
> In other words:  I'm all for harmonization of terms, except where  
> that muddies the waters.  Let's keep the three terms 6LoWPAN (a  
> specific LLN where we do expect to have some highly constrained  
> nodes), LLN, and constrained nodes/networks separate for now.  Yes,  
> they all fit together in the region where they overlap, but, no,  
> they aren't the same.
>

We know that terminology can be discussed for years ;-) I am not  
particularly pushy for the use of one term or another but what I  
definitely noticed is that people and the industry can rightly be  
confused by all these terms. I cannot count the number of times I had  
this question ... what is the difference between 6lowpan, WSN, IP  
sensor networks, .... etc. I would personally prefer a slightly more  
generic term that cover them all and harmonized the terminology across  
all WGs. Just replied to Cullen about LLN. Does that make sense ?

> Gruesse, Carsten
>