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

["Don Sturek" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Zach,

I am still hoping we don't have a proxy (or gateway).  Ideally, we can
define at least an application transport protocol that can work natively in
CoAp and be mainstream enough to be supported in the wider internet.

As soon as we say there is a proxy or gateway required, we will get pushback
from device manufacturers who don't want the added cost on their devices.

Don

-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Shelby [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 5:52 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On  
> Behalf
> Of Cullen Jennings
> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:29 AM
> To: Jukka Manner
> Cc: Don Sturek; [e-mail]
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowapp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp

-- 
http://www.sensinode.com
http://zachshelby.org - My blog "On the Internet of Things"
Mobile: [phone]

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.