IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Tue, 03 November 2009 05:46 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@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 513893A68CB for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:46:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 0jNF+dAnIb8M for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:46:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D6B13A6876 for <6lowapp@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:46:14 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEABtT70qrRN+K/2dsb2JhbADFKZc4hD0E
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,672,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="220550906"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Nov 2009 05:46:35 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nA35kZE8016029; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:46:35 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:46:34 -0800
Received: from [192.168.4.177] ([10.99.9.18]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:46:34 -0800
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: Shidan <shidan@gmail.com>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <429b380e0910311133k784f8fe8w878f81560fc28800@mail.gmail.com>
Impp: xmpp:cullenfluffyjennings@jabber.org
References: <B27B00F8-1A4F-4258-86FC-C02E78778E45@cisco.com> <184E130A-881A-4E1F-8408-FB03A7849A82@sensinode.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> <a9994e940910291111r5523e6eer581313f8fee12cba@mail.gmail.com> <71DDE42E-E6D4-49D7-8F2E-699FBBDBAC12@cisco.com> <429b380e0910311133k784f8fe8w878f81560fc28800@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <D9EF5ACC-EC22-4ED6-AF30-491755AAA695@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: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 22:46:33 -0700
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Nov 2009 05:46:34.0731 (UTC) FILETIME=[00AEE3B0:01CA5C49]
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
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: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:46:15 -0000

On Oct 31, 2009, at 12:33 PM, Shidan wrote:

> Hi Cullen, I would check the motivational draft Arjun and I  
> submitted for SIP.
>
> OK - The way I want to try and derive us towards a decision here is  
> get a list of candidate protocols then for each one ask the yes/no  
> is the their agreement that we should do a mapping to that  
> protocol.  The protocols I have heard so far are HTTP, SNMP,  SMTP.  
> So two questions
>
> 1) what other protocols mapping should we do?
>
> In general there are many practical applications which are using SIP  
> and XMPP for M2M communications. This should be a consideration.

there seem a fair amount of agreement on this - will add to the list.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email