Re: [6lowapp] HTTP and SIP

On Oct 12, 2009, at 14:18 , Adam Dunkels wrote:

> That said, the HTTP and/or TCP interaction models may not be right  
> for all applications in 6lowapp, but we should be wary of  
> reinventing TCP over UDP for those cases where TCP-like  
> functionality is needed.

I totally agree. This is why we are aiming at support for both UDP and  
TCP as transports for 6lowapp in the charter. There are interaction  
models for embedded devices where UDP is great. For example for very  
short transactions, multicast, or even where no response is needed.  
There are also models where TCP is great, and situations where it  
really works too.

In the future this activity hopefully spins off a transport area  
working group that can really make an improvement/alternative to TCP  
for these types of applications and networks.  We already identified  
this in this first Bar BOF - but it was made clear that this is a long  
term process and something to do in parallel.

Zach

> /adam
> -- 
> Adam Dunkels <adam@sics.se>se>, +46707731614
> http://twitter.com/adunk | http://www.sics.se/~adam/
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowapp mailing list
> 6lowapp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp

-- 
http://www.sensinode.com
http://zachshelby.org - My blog “On the Internet of Things”
Mobile: +358 40 7796297

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.