IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Don Sturek" <d.sturek@att.net> Sun, 01 November 2009 17:50 UTC

Return-Path: <d.sturek@att.net>
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 B49C93A6814 for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Nov 2009 09:50:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.043
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.043 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.858, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
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 ABt8cIIhkfZh for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Nov 2009 09:50:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp101.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (smtp101.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com [67.195.15.60]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1180E3A67AB for <6lowapp@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Nov 2009 09:50:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 32526 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2009 17:50:58 -0000
Received: from adsl-69-105-139-118.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net (d.sturek@69.105.139.118 with login) by smtp101.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 01 Nov 2009 09:50:58 -0800 PST
X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo-
X-YMail-OSG: OHiyyGAVM1lXT1F7DAzjczz4b18I5OT6D3LYOJGyPWC.k5_RRyVCEMx1kjbtlQL2dmCMfwoabY.bRlJcGNwqX7JxxB4gaJYEZe9eka3g.770qFylXIu.vYym1H5us79ZlrOfOCJktmnS36Y56EMNac2b_tZMWAKEyqi.gdaGWRcmwd82x7cR7txIz.4mDj272RYIYCass9H7GnalO9devMaTGB8nYVOzRzwFSG385QAH8uyWtpTpB4jetuD0isn_Q5398zat_I.rCj2HSAQEKtzsb5esIb9ytOzb_yy_rrU2kxObVg--
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
From: "Don Sturek" <d.sturek@att.net>
To: <paduffy@cisco.com>
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> <A4C590B945EF374AB02BB6A2EAA4485808B4C76271@EXMBX01.apps4rent.net> <6C14D98B-4B4D-44B8-B8A5-1BEA5A8F443C@cisco.com> <005d01ca5a87$a4e004f0$eea00ed0$@sturek@att.net> <4AEDC3FD.3040801@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AEDC3FD.3040801@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 09:50:56 -0800
Message-ID: <001601ca5b1b$ddb917a0$992b46e0$@sturek@att.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcpbF/xfIu8VcXawQK+VsXqpJxhDLQAA64iA
Content-Language: en-us
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
Reply-To: d.sturek@att.net
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, 01 Nov 2009 17:50:42 -0000

Hi Paul,

Yes, XMPP would be quite interesting if the text exchange could be avoided.

Can we add this possibility to our CoAp charter as a application transport
possibility?

Don


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Duffy [mailto:paduffy@cisco.com] 
Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 9:23 AM
To: d.sturek@att.net
Cc: 'Cullen Jennings'; 6lowapp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lowapp] Proposed charter for 6LoWAPP BOF

Hi Donn,

> We welcome other suggestions like XMPP and SIP but we did look at those
and
> ruled them out for reasons like:
> 1)  Verboseness (using text string exchanges for devices with very small
> transmit/receive packet sizes)
> 2)  Session management overhead
>   


SIP in the Smart Grid HAN seems a fundamental misfit to SIPs chartered 
intent.

But XMPP gives me pause...

- would not an EXI encoding go a long way to alleviate the verbosity issues?

- RESTful HTTP is a fine choice, but there are requirements for more 
than just request/response messaging patterns in the Smart Grid HAN and 
NAN.  XMPP would offer request/response (sensor reading), pub/sub 
(broadcast announcements), one way async (scheduled reads), presence for 
endpoint status, etc.

- how is XMPP session management any more onerous that HTTP over TLS?  
This assuming of course that TCP is doable.

Cheers


> Don
>
>
>
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email