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

Nicolas,

On Nov 4, 2009, at 1:18 , nicolas.riou@fr.schneider-electric.com wrote:

>
> Hi Cullen,
>
>     >----- Message de Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> sur Sat, 31  
> Oct 2009 11:29:41 -0600 -----
>     >Pour:        arjun.lists@hsc.com
>     >cc:        Don Sturek <donsturek@grid2home.com>om>, 6lowapp@ietf.org
>     >Objet:        Re: [6lowapp] Proposed charter for 6LoWAPP BOF
>     >
>     >On Oct 29, 2009, at 12:11 , Arjun Roychowdhury wrote:
>     >
>     > ...
>     >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?
>
> The charter has significantly changed these days and I would like to  
> re-state the need for
> seamless interfacing between 6lowapp and the DPWS world. DPWS is a  
> low cost SOA solution at
> device level and will play a major role in future Building and  
> Industrial Automation systems
> (embedded in zone controllers, Automation servers, industrial  
> PLCs...). Besides, in some
> cases, native support of DPWS in VISTA and Windows 7 network  
> explorer might help in simplifying
> discovery and commissioning of devices.

I totally agree that we should interface seamlessly with DPWS. Cullen  
is in the process of re-writing the charter, this is the reason it got  
left out temporarily (we had it in earlier). In fact the discovery  
mechanism is meant to be compatible with DPWS thinking, or at least  
useable with a subset of DPWS profiles if someone wants.

> The HTTP REST model proposed in the new charter is sufficient for  
> simple get/set operations but
> I join Vlad Trifa when saying that there are requirements for more  
> than just request/response
> messaging patterns like e.g. publish/subscribe (multicast). IMO  
> seamless interfacing with WS_*
> (at least straightforward proxying) must be provided to ensure  
> efficient integration of 6lowpan networks
> in upcoming architectures.

The charter is actually saying that REST alone is not sufficient.  
Multicast is listed (or should be better listed). It will also be  
possible to realize RPC over CoAP, and thus someone could even use  
this for WS_* messaging if they wanted to. Just as it works with HTTP.  
Do you have some specific text changes in mind to make that more  
clear? Now it lists multicast, push, pull and notification.

Thanks,
Zach

>
> Regards.
> Nicolas
> _______________________________________________
> 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.