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

On Nov 1, 2009, at 2:15 , Don Sturek wrote:

> Hi Cullen,
>
> One important use case to consider:
> 1)  Devices to manage are running on 6LowPAN (using some 6LowAPP  
> defined
> protocol).   Controlling devices are running someplace on the wider
> internet.

This is common in building management and most M2M applications as well.

> 2)  Does this mean that the scope of protocol work in 6LowAPP needs to
> identify this type of control as a valid use case?

Definitely! However we don't need to require the controlling device to  
speak CoAP (although it could). More likely there is a proxy somewhere  
between.

> 3)  Does the use of 6LowAPP protocols on the wider internet need to  
> then be
> in the scope of 6LowAPP?

Yes. This is IP, so the CoAP protocol can be used over any IP  
networks. If you need a proxy, it can be located anywhere. We should  
assume that CoAP will mainly be used in the constrained or application- 
specific domain.

Zach

>
> Don
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 6lowapp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lowapp-bounces@ietf.org] On  
> Behalf
> Of Cullen Jennings
> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:29 AM
> To: Jukka Manner
> Cc: Don Sturek; 6lowapp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [6lowapp] Proposed charter for 6LoWAPP BOF
>
>
> On Oct 29, 2009, at 8:20 , Jukka Manner wrote:
>
>> 1. This seems to indicate that 6lowapp will not be tied to any
>> existing work, it will work on its own goals, but in collaboration
>> with others (which is somewhat open as what it means). I would have
>> expected that 6lowapp would specifically look at existing work in
>> related WGs and see how build on top of that.
>
> My mistake - I did not mean to imply that it was not layered on top of
> closely related existing work. I think most people assumed that this
> would run on top of a LoPAN but it seemed they also wanted it to be
> able to run on top of a other things including a normal IP LAN and
> WAN. Clearly this is all about same use cases as 6LoPAN and ties
> closing with 6LoPAN and ROLL as well as work going on at many other
> SDOs. However, I'm not sure what needs to be said. Are WG drafts with
> use case / requirements from other WG that we should be referencing?
> Give me ideas on what things you were thinking here. Clearly the IESG
> would not be keen on chartering a new WG to do something another WG
> was already charted to do - repeating work in two places seldom ends
> well :-) Can you suggest some specific text for the charter that you
> think would have fairly wide consent and captures what you are looking
> for here?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowapp mailing list
> 6lowapp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.