IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lowapp] Proposed charter for 6LoWAPP BOF

Paul Duffy <paduffy@cisco.com> Mon, 02 November 2009 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <paduffy@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 4C2153A68F0 for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:58:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 DuWRMVwoX-oe for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:58:27 -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 2C80C3A6A0D for <6lowapp@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:58:27 -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: AvsGAJOQ7kqtJV2c/2dsb2JhbACPZbY2gRoIAZVBhDwE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,667,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="66024542"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Nov 2009 15:58:46 +0000
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nA2FwkXd007504; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:58:46 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:58:46 -0500
Received: from [161.44.65.115] ([161.44.65.115]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:58:45 -0500
Message-ID: <4AEF01B5.7020208@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:58:45 -0500
From: Paul Duffy <paduffy@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh)" <sanjsinh@cisco.com>
References: <B27B00F8-1A4F-4258-86FC-C02E78778E45@cisco.com> <CE5B892A-3699-4CBF-8B6A-588F5A7DE99A@cisco.com><EB735931-0D15-4017-94F1-3B10A0EC814D@sensinode.com> <843F0B9E-8C62-47A6-AFEC-4BE31D62CDB5@cisco.com><2AA1E2A3-9EA9-4B94-85BA-834C66826A85@tzi.org> <C93E77B9-349F-451C-BAED-273555EEE5DE@cisco.com><A4C590B945EF374AB02BB6A2EAA4485808B4C76271@EXMBX01.apps4rent.net><6C14D98B-4B4D-44B8-B8A5-1BEA5A8F443C@cisco.com><4AEDC3FD.3040801@cisco.com> <a9994e940911011309o6287b0d5r116bcf5329a1035c@mail.gmail.com> <a9994e940911011312g22582a3dpcbf0978755758aa@mail.gmail.com> <00FC4AA684E90E4DA2FF71021CD5A6CA010444@XMB-RCD-101.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <00FC4AA684E90E4DA2FF71021CD5A6CA010444@XMB-RCD-101.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Nov 2009 15:58:45.0722 (UTC) FILETIME=[5BA593A0:01CA5BD5]
Cc: 6lowapp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lowapp] Proposed charter for 6LoWAPP BOF
X-BeenThere: 6lowapp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: paduffy@cisco.com
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: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:58:28 -0000

Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh) wrote:
>
> I think Paul is talking about verbose nature of SIP and also the 
> parsing of headers and message body that is required and whether the 
> processing cost fits into the requirement for low power embedded devices.
>

That's only part of the issue.  HAN will need req/resp, pub/sub, async 
one way messaging patterns, etc..  Req/resp RPC starts to get pretty 
weird over SIP.  Whereas it is a fully supported pattern in XMPP world.

>  
>
> Sanjay
>
>  
>
> *From:* 6lowapp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lowapp-bounces@ietf.org] *On 
> Behalf Of *Arjun Roychowdhury
> *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2009 2:43 AM
> *To:* Paul Duffy (paduffy)
> *Cc:* 6lowapp@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [6lowapp] Proposed charter for 6LoWAPP BOF
>
>  
>
> responding from my subscribed email id incase the previous one does 
> not make it to this list:
>
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Arjun Roychowdhury <arjunrc@gmail.com 
> <mailto:arjunrc@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>      
>
>     SIP in the Smart Grid HAN seems a fundamental misfit to SIPs
>     chartered intent.
>
>     But XMPP gives me pause...
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> ARC> Why is that so? SIP is a protocol to communicate between one or 
> more entities. The fact that it was originally designed to communicate 
> between users is much less important compared to the benefits its 
> architecture brings in. If people use SIP to create a recvonly session 
> with an IP camera in their house to monitor security from their IMS 
> (SIP) enabled cell phone, how is that different from controlling any 
> other device?
>
>  
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Arjun Roychowdhury
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email