Re: [6lowapp] HTTP and SIP

Jonathan Hui <jhui@archrock.com> Sun, 11 October 2009 02:38 UTC

Return-Path: <jhui@archrock.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 81DA33A6800 for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:38:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.217, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 7nlWx+9-gYUE for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sf.archrock.com (mail.sf.archrock.com [216.121.16.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAEE03A67B4 for <6lowapp@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sf.archrock.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2BB2AF9CB; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from mail.sf.archrock.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sf.archrock.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id py48D9sfYiTu; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:39:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.199] (adsl-71-142-110-10.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [71.142.110.10]) by mail.sf.archrock.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4FAEAF9C1; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <1DDEE359-AA0F-4D94-81BA-7ED03E3CC86A@archrock.com>
From: Jonathan Hui <jhui@archrock.com>
To: Adam Dunkels <adam@sics.se>
In-Reply-To: <4AD105DC.3070407@sics.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:39:57 -0700
References: <429b380e0910101030q25f1ad7fge7157c2e04b5d530@mail.gmail.com> <4AD105DC.3070407@sics.se>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Cc: 6lowapp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lowapp] HTTP and SIP
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: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 02:38:15 -0000

On Oct 10, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Adam Dunkels wrote:

> Shidan wrote:
>> "request-response protocols like HTTP may require battery-operated,  
>> mostly sleeping nodes to be listening for requests much more  
>> frequently than their application processing requirements alone  
>> would need them to wake up."
>> "In addition, some of the applications may require optimizations in  
>> terms of bandwidth usage; for example, the usual data formats (both  
>> headers and body) are perceived to be too chatty for the 50-60 byte  
>> payloads possible in LoWPANs.  Their interpretation and generation  
>> may require too much code for the 8-bit and 16-bit processors  
>> dominating LoWPAN nodes."
>> None of these points seem evident to me.
>
> I very much agree with this. By so quickly dismissing the  
> opportunities with existing protocols such as HTTP and SIP, this  
> group may miss reaching widespread adoption of its protocols.

I also agree that we should not be so quick to come to conclusions  
without presentation of real empirical evidence.

> Both these arguments were frequently used in the past against IP for  
> resource-constrained systems, yet today we take IP for granted for  
> these systems despite the overheads of IP. We need to a pay price  
> for interoperability and flexibility, but we think it is worth it.

I'd be careful carrying the interoperability argument towards the  
upper layers.  IP was designed to be the narrow waist.  Today, that  
has evolved to UDP and TCP being the narrow waist [1].  We have far  
more flexibility and opportunity at the application layer than we do  
with TCP/UDP/IP and we should not be afraid to exploit that.  I do  
support the argument for evaluating existing protocols/architectures,  
but more because they are established, vetted, and widely understood,  
less so because we actually want to utilize the existing technical  
infrastructure that surrounds it.

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosenberg-internet-waist-hourglass

--
Jonathan Hui