Re: [6lowapp] BOF proposal: update

Don,

Don Sturek wrote:
> Hi Sam,
> 
> The plan in ZigBee Smart Energy V2 is not to rehost the current ZigBee Smart
> Energy application messaging overtop the IP stack.  Work is currently
> underway to extend the IEC TC57 CIM for the Smart Energy V2 use cases.  The
> CIM is a static data model using UML.
> 
> The message exchange will be defined as XML (probably) or possibly ASN.1 (at
> least, some standard self describing protocol).  Since we have very small
> packet sizes using IEEE 802.15.4, we need to use some standard encoding
> method (like tokenized XML method, which I think is out of scope of IETF)
> and some efficient embedded web services delivery (which I think should be
> in scope for IETF).   We also need a service discovery method which aligns
> with the use of the encoding method we use (XML or ASN.1 or ??).

These are all covered by existing MIME content-types and standard 
content-encodings. In 6lowapp we just need to be sure to support a large 
enough range of these for current and future use.

> I agree with the statement that the 6LowAPP application protocol should be
> format agnostic.  It would be good to see that various encodings are
> supported and that the XML encoding/embedded web services/binary service
> discovery defined by 6LowAPP could be transparently used in conjunction with
> full XML (or other self describing protocol)/current web services
> protocols/full XML based service discovery for those devices holding the
> schema and willing to expand/compress for communication with small footprint
> devices.

This is a definite must.

> I think we have most of the communications layers defined to support this,
> now needing the application support.
> 
> Don
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 6lowapp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lowapp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Sam Roberts
> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 12:29 PM
> To: 6lowapp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [6lowapp] BOF proposal: update
> 
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Brian Frank <brian.tridium@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Couple of my thoughts to echo what some others have said:
>> - I believe the application protocol should be format agnostic.  I suspect
>> that it will be difficult to achieve consensus on data formats. I am not
>> sure how that might limit the scope of 6lowapp, but certainly I hope that
> a
>> debate on formats doesn't derail the transport protocol itself
> 
> I share the hope that format discussions won't bog things down.
> 
> Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by "format agnostic", won't
> non-specification of such an important aspect prevent independantly
> developed implementations of the protocol from interoperating?
> 
>> - I personally believe that naming should be based on URIs; however it
> seems
>> as this is already presumed as a requirement?
> 
> Have I missed discussion of this, or has rehosting the zigbee
> application support layer and cluster library on top of IPv6 over
> 802.15.4 already been discussed and/or discarded as a possibility?
> 
> A profile supporting RESTful URI based request/response could exit at
> a zigbee endpoint.
> 
> Cheers,
> Sam
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowapp mailing list
> 6lowapp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.