IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lowapp] HTTP and SIP

Brian Frank <brian.tridium@gmail.com> Sun, 11 October 2009 13:28 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.tridium@gmail.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 CE4413A68EE for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Oct 2009 06:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=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 wUueg7cA9rrn for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Oct 2009 06:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f228.google.com (mail-fx0-f228.google.com [209.85.220.228]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D91793A687F for <6lowapp@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Oct 2009 06:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm28 with SMTP id 28so7004710fxm.42 for <6lowapp@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Oct 2009 06:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=vfI+BQgHFcyQipa6Jz+uz8o4Rj/N4/7LUfo3es+NuNM=; b=vu52EHhjf74NaSE5sI5BFsOKiKYZCC2wg08RTA3wWW1XzkwVCH/ThDJF9uEcfWrxPA lyUdtvrTKAWpw3s3ba5hcMa8tMf5S3z8ypl2cFexKCXJnlF2N4JNh7XAKxxGBUr/aZMe uBhHJVJi5iT4s7yzCkKCGlbluROyAAkoc4aww=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=LbQK9n9nV2IyWZtyG3OnbScOtSNiIx/9nTCb/6nJbQDUUjD+sE9x+zrdbnOmHoWzwR xXHUNP5OAyOsZBkN6VZE1LBWXdBM+LB8vUJkbJAkWJtFFLT5lGaJ+syDScplFUg1LN+K C6NXP4kXVY1KheMU00yFai/xkoP0EjMxZ7EUU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.26.147 with SMTP id e19mr4025796bkc.149.1255267785211; Sun, 11 Oct 2009 06:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1DDEE359-AA0F-4D94-81BA-7ED03E3CC86A@archrock.com>
References: <429b380e0910101030q25f1ad7fge7157c2e04b5d530@mail.gmail.com> <4AD105DC.3070407@sics.se> <1DDEE359-AA0F-4D94-81BA-7ED03E3CC86A@archrock.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 09:29:45 -0400
Message-ID: <7b191a110910110629r6e45825cr4e69c0636ea99c16@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian Frank <brian.tridium@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Hui <jhui@archrock.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000325557d266f81520475a8ceab
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 13:28:00 -0000

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

I agree.  One of the first things we need to do is justify that a new
protocol is required using real empirical data that shows TCP and text based
HTTP do not work for the problem domain.  For example, how does HTTP over
TCP stack up against binary UDP protocols with regard to latency, bandwidth,
and power consumption of battery powered sensors?

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email