Re: [6lowapp] BOF proposal: update

[Sam Roberts <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Brian Frank <[e-mail]> 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 share the hope that format discussions won't bog things down.

Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by "format agnostic", won't
non-specification of such an important aspect prevent independantly
developed implementations of the protocol from interoperating?

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

Have I missed discussion of this, or has rehosting the zigbee
application support layer and cluster library on top of IPv6 over
802.15.4 already been discussed and/or discarded as a possibility?

A profile supporting RESTful URI based request/response could exit at
a zigbee endpoint.

Cheers,
Sam