Re: [6lowapp] Next version of charter proposal up on 6lowapp.net

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Thu, 05 November 2009 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 4653D3A697C for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:35:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.886
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.886 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.363, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
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 grqogtekWcUA for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:35:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 028963A694F for <6lowapp@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:35:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.49]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20BC6C003C; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 17:35:55 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UBaG6LgeaN+a; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 17:35:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from elstar.local (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81F2DC003A; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 17:35:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id DA303DA3476; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 17:35:52 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 17:35:52 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Message-ID: <20091105163552.GA10440@elstar.local>
Mail-Followup-To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, "6lowapp@ietf.org" <6lowapp@ietf.org>
References: <547D55FF-B03C-458E-A51C-3223D5F005F4@tzi.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <547D55FF-B03C-458E-A51C-3223D5F005F4@tzi.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: "6lowapp@ietf.org" <6lowapp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lowapp] Next version of charter proposal up on 6lowapp.net
X-BeenThere: 6lowapp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:35:34 -0000

On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 11:06:51AM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:

> I have put a new version of the WG charter proposal on the wiki page at
> http://6lowapp.net
> =
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/6LowApp
> (charter text is at the end of the page).

Some feedback from a quick read of the charter text.

--

I have not clue what this means:

   [...] For these benchmark cases, the
   payload will be based on interface profile specific XML documents
   compressed with EXI.

Which benchmark cases is this text referring to? And why suddenly fix
a certain encoding?

--

I also do not understand the relationship of 4a) to 4). Since 4) talks
specifically about HTTP REST, how can 4a talk about non HTTP REST
protocols? I think 4) should say:

4) Specification how other protocols interface via a CoGII to CoAP.
   Separate specifications are envisioned zero or more of: SNMP, SMTP,
   SIP, and XMPP. [[Note: In the BOF it would be nice to figure out
   which of these are in the charter.]]

--

I find the text on various commissioning methods rather strange for
the charter of a working group. A working group charter item can be
the production of a BCP on commissioning methods. The current text
more looks like the initial draft of such a BCP, which does not belong
into a charter.

--

   CoAP will use CMS for object security. [...lost of more detail...]

This again looks like prescribing the solution - are we sure we do
understand that CMS is the right choice? Are we sure we understand how
CMS object security maps to other protocols mentioned under 4) and
that CoAP is supposed to interface to? Do we understand the overhead
of CMS security for say a simple meter reading? It might be better to
have a charter item to work on the security aspects and it might be
good to have security area advisors involved in this from the very
beginning.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>