IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Shidan <shidan@gmail.com> Sun, 01 November 2009 22:00 UTC

Return-Path: <shidan@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 0C7C23A6839 for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Nov 2009 14:00:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.273
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.273 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.325, 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 DJKo8vwcNU3p for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Nov 2009 14:00:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ew0-f218.google.com (mail-ew0-f218.google.com [209.85.219.218]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA3093A6783 for <6lowapp@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Nov 2009 13:59:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ewy18 with SMTP id 18so3955528ewy.43 for <6lowapp@ietf.org>; Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:59:56 -0800 (PST)
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=hC8RYEVuWC2gg8SUe6alVZmH3VA+FKV0c8/2BMizp70=; b=Z/aV23FtxDCxM+XyyDfCNh6PIYkaXZWRhjSf6Dy5xBRTLMtK9wkJPfR0T95zU615aw AKFLHDvNSjVYale5W2waceje+qUNRbzvobmhKRd5EHOgUHkJq/nikuES83chTs939Lpi kvvwr2FEMyocjeyWmn9rjgrvstSKZvCti9ago=
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=dSLc5/7vC1Ra3AzoGAhuahiR6uf6zZ/hHLnoZ0lOQ3sqzlXDDDcuMYR7XlDzVjK/Rj 4EQiyQFByjmveGNhW9+WTnyDhvW1ey6rxtulUK+XKJzseU5iNGCjptVbtZzuz/ryEC/7 8RRcaBipluWbkg3ZL0RB9LbBa814AeHtYg7pc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.89.149 with SMTP id c21mr3448404wef.224.1257112796721; Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:59:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4AEDC3FD.3040801@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> <4AEDC3FD.3040801@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 17:59:56 -0400
Message-ID: <429b380e0911011359g26b90748x1bd6bf74049162af@mail.gmail.com>
From: Shidan <shidan@gmail.com>
To: paduffy@cisco.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d7eefab0f157047756610a
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
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 22:00:09 -0000

Hi Paul. XMPP definitely would be a great fit for this space and I would
definitely be a backer of that. But can you expand on why you think SIP
would be any less relevant for all those points you mention. I think what
would be instructive is to have an actual concrete matrix of the proposed
RESTful protocol, SIP and XMPP for just a couple of simple use cases and
call flows see exactly where it is that XMPP and SIP, if they are binary
encoded, don't meet the requirements of LoWPANs  and actually see which ones
are in fact the better choice.

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Paul Duffy <paduffy@cisco.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowapp mailing list
> 6lowapp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email