IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh)" <sanjsinh@cisco.com> Mon, 02 November 2009 05:00 UTC

Return-Path: <sanjsinh@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 CD4103A69A9 for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Nov 2009 21:00:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 MYn2zajKwszh for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Nov 2009 21:00:17 -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 48CCB3A69AB for <6lowapp@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Nov 2009 20:59:34 -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: Ah0FAOL17UpAZnwM/2dsb2JhbACCJiy/bpY0hDkE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.44,663,1249257600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="65948338"
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Nov 2009 04:59:53 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com ([72.163.62.190]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nA24xrHl014279; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 04:59:53 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-101.cisco.com ([72.163.62.143]) by xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 1 Nov 2009 22:59:53 -0600
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CA5B79.5011B966"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 22:59:51 -0600
Message-ID: <00FC4AA684E90E4DA2FF71021CD5A6CA010444@XMB-RCD-101.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <a9994e940911011312g22582a3dpcbf0978755758aa@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [6lowapp] Proposed charter for 6LoWAPP BOF
Thread-Index: AcpbOB3O1WPpSqcxT/iI7o1j52HqSAAQLCOg
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>
From: "Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh)" <sanjsinh@cisco.com>
To: <arjun.lists@hsc.com>, "Paul Duffy (paduffy)" <paduffy@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Nov 2009 04:59:53.0049 (UTC) FILETIME=[50566490:01CA5B79]
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: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 05:00:18 -0000

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.

 

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>
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