Re: [6lowapp] Really we need for HTTP on smart devices?
Vlad Trifa <trifa@inf.ethz.ch> Fri, 30 October 2009 12:35 UTC
Return-Path: <trifa@inf.ethz.ch>
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 6D74F3A6869 for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>;
Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 MjCHFq8YUhFu for
<6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:35:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gwse.ethz.ch (gwse.ethz.ch [129.132.178.237]) by core3.amsl.com
(Postfix) with ESMTP id BC3C63A657C for <6lowapp@ietf.org>;
Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CAS00.d.ethz.ch (129.132.178.234) by gws00.d.ethz.ch
(129.132.178.237) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0;
Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:35:49 +0100
Received: from vs57.inf.ethz.ch (129.132.130.236) by mail.ethz.ch
(129.132.178.227) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0;
Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:35:27 +0100
Message-ID: <D014365B-7E67-4A04-BE1C-4926A7923FF8@inf.ethz.ch>
From: Vlad Trifa <trifa@inf.ethz.ch>
To: "Adriano Pezzuto (apezzuto)" <apezzuto@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0D212BD466921646B58854FB79092CEC8E8644@XMB-AMS-106.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:35:27 +0100
References: <0D212BD466921646B58854FB79092CEC8E8644@XMB-AMS-106.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:41:22 -0700
Cc: 6lowapp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lowapp] Really we need for HTTP on smart devices?
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: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:36:46 -0000
Hello, Adriano: the web of things is exactly going beyond the "web information shadow" as you put it. We've been putting data from devices on the web since a decade, so what? nothing new there, but if you can turn devices by design into actual web actors (just as any other Web server), it open doors and completely new design possibilities as opposed to just make their data available on the web - it's a completely different (or broader) way of viewing things. Well, I think the "HTTP is too heavy" argument is certainly valid when you have very tight/specific requirements and need to maximize the throughput of your communication. Of course it is a verbose protocol, but you might gain a lot of using it directly on devices, especially in terms of application level interoperability, and even more important for plug & play integration with the Web and Web applications. Let's put it that way: how many people know/use the zillions application protocols/middlewares available (I don't want to mention any, because many are excellent for specific applications, but I don't believe much in the *perfect* middleware) hundreds? maybe thousands? Ok and now how may people use http/xml? I think you get my point here. Indeed, what you lose in performance (and it's not as bad as one thinks) you gain in terms of integrability. When I think smart homes, I think many constructors need to agree on a protocol. But I also think few messages here and there to control lights/HVAC and read energy meters with sub-second delay requirements. I don't think, thousands of messages per second nor high-frequency distributed sampling. Eventually, we want to reuse infrastructure that's already there (web), so why not use and adapt http/xml directly for that matter, as we need to design an application protocol anyway? Of course one can use gateways for doing this, but if you can have directly http on devices, then your gateway simply become routers across physical interfaces, and it's much faster because you don't need to open or understand packets passing through. Then if you think lots of concurrent people reading all types of http sensors from all types and constructors, then you can simply pop in a squid or any web cache, and voila, massively scalable infrastructure to store data (we got 20 years of experience with the web and the associated techs, so why reinvent the wheel when it rolls where you want?). I shall stop here, and please have a look at some of our work, I think we try to motivate and illustrate that exact point well there: http://www.vs.inf.ethz.ch/publ/papers/guinardSensorMashups09.pdf http://www.vs.inf.ethz.ch/publ/papers/dguinard_09_WOTMashups.pdf However, sorry I don't get the "humans don't have a web server" argument, what is your point with that? Vlad On Oct 30, 2009, at 1:02 PM, Adriano Pezzuto (apezzuto) wrote: > Hello, > there is a lot effort to push HTTP and REST interfaces on smart > objects > assuming that smart devices (sensor/actuators/readers) should act as > Web > providers. On the other side, 6lowpan and other wireless sensor > networks > are made by resource-constrained embedded devices so HTTP looks like > too > resource expensive. > > We are seeing a lot of proxying and gatewaying solutions to bring HTTP > and REST on the 6lowpan devices. But working with gateways and proxies > are always struggling especially at application level. My question > here > is why we need to bring HTTP on smart objects? > > Smart objects interact with the Internet as they like (and can) as > humans do. Humans type on a computer keyboard or play in front of the > iPhone camera while Things send sensing data or get commands to act on > the real world. Humans do not have an embedded HTTP server even if the > results of their actions (i.e. typing on a keyboard and playing in > front > of a camera) are available as Web resources. In the same way, Things > do > not need for an embedded HTTP server. Things interact with the > Internet > using a lightweight protocol while the results of their interaction > are > available on the Web as resources. It is a sort of "information > shadow" > data that Things have on the Web. This data will be collected in a > suitable manner for the resource-constrained embedded devices and make > available as Web resource with HTTP and REST interfaces. > > What do you think about it? > > Regards, > Adriano > > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowapp mailing list > 6lowapp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp
- [6lowapp] Really we need for HTTP on smart device… Adriano Pezzuto (apezzuto)
- Re: [6lowapp] Really we need for HTTP on smart de… Vlad Trifa
- Re: [6lowapp] Really we need for HTTP on smart de… Don Sturek
- Re: [6lowapp] Really we need for HTTP on smart de… Adriano Pezzuto (apezzuto)
- Re: [6lowapp] Really we need for HTTP on smart de… Adam Dunkels
- Re: [6lowapp] Really we need for HTTP on smart de… Adriano Pezzuto (apezzuto)
- Re: [6lowapp] Really we need for HTTP on smart de… Vlad Trifa
- Re: [6lowapp] Really we need for HTTP on smart de… Zach Shelby