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

[Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 29, 2009, at 8:37 , Don Sturek wrote:

> Hi Cullen,
>
> Overall, the proposed charter looks interesting.
>
> On the Commissioning methods, I think making the "Duckling" mode  
> mandatory as indicated in the text below should not be decided in  
> the charter.

Fair enough. Let me start a separate thread on this.

>  Unless this commissioning method has undergone some form of  
> security review, it could well be something we (at least in Smart  
> Energy) cannot use.

Agree, but even worse. The IETF is not going to publish any of this as  
an RFC until it has had reasonable security review so I certainly  
don't want anything that would be a significant innovation in security  
or is broken from a security point of view.

> It would be a shame to waste code space for something like this.
>
> While we (again Smart Energy) are looking at a RESTfull HTTP  
> architecture, it would be good to point out that this is only one  
> option.  It would be nice to see if other popular communication  
> solutions can work as well.

Yep - several other people have told me this too. What other popular  
protocols should we consider?

>
> One more thng:   The discussion below indicates two level of  
> communication:   PEPs and CoAps.   I would hope we could avoid  
> this.  It would be nice to address and communicate with CoAp devices  
> as you would with any other device on the internet whether a PEP was  
> present or not.  I would not want to have the group focused on this  
> type of gateway approach.

Agree - I was trying to make it clear any computer on the internet  
could talk CoAp directly to Device but failed to express that. Could  
you suggest some text to make that clear?

>
> Overall though this was a good start for the charter.
>
> Don
>