Re: [6lowapp] BOF proposal: update

[Brian Frank <[e-mail]>]

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 personally believe that naming should be based on URIs; however it seems
as this is already presumed as a requirement?

- just to echo what David said, I read the BOF to say that adaption of HTTP
(as proposed by myself) is off the table.  But I think the intent was just
that we must define some subset of REST functionality can be implemented
efficiently?

- sleeping nodes are mentioned a couple times already, but I'd just like to
re-iterate that I believe sleeping nodes are perhaps the most important
problem space for 6lowapp (or least a peer to the problem space of
computing/memory/bandwidth constraints)

Brian


On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:

> We used the last week to discuss the BOF proposal with our responsible
> AD and with people from other standards groups.
>
> The result is a revised BOF proposal, that already provides an outline
> for the charter of the new WG.  This charter now defines a more
> specific focus for the WG til the end of 2010.  I think that is good
> because the IETF is much better in handling focused, specific work
> items than in grand, boil-the-ocean efforts.  If we succeed, we can
> always recharter to attack additional items.
>
> A bit more background: The goal of this BOF proposal is to get a BOF
> going in Hiroshima, the week of Nov 9.  The goal of the BOF is to
> demonstrate that we have enough interest ("energy") and enough focus
> to solve a credible problem in a defined amount of time; this will
> enable us to charter a WG following the BOF.  Not all of you will be
> physically present in Hiroshima; that's another reason why it is
> important to hear your opinions on this mailing list.  The charter
> proposal can and will change until Hiroshima, and now is the time to
> influence it and to express your support.  Also, the IETF is generally
> driven by Internet-Draft documents, so it would be good to hear on the
> list what you will be able to contribute.
>