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

[Jonathan Hui <[e-mail]>]

Hi Don,

On Oct 30, 2009, at 6:25 AM, Don Sturek wrote:

> It would be good to avoid PEPs as much as possible.   These devices  
> are
> controversial in cost constrained deployments since they imply a  
> standalone
> box someplace (that the customer does not get benefit from  
> functionally) or
> some translation which eventually is outdated.

It seems that the desire to avoid the use of translation proxies/ 
gateways in SE 2 is driven by both business and technical reasons, is  
this accurate?  (Security may be another good reason to avoid the use  
of translation proxies/gateways).

Do you see value in a back-end service for SE 2 that can centrally  
buffer/store data from, accept and schedule requests to, and offer the  
data/node capabilities of large numbers of LLN devices in an  
aggregated and structured manner using one or more standard  
interfaces?  Such a service is not a proxy and also not really a  
gateway.  This is more of what I was envisioning that the PEP should  
really be, and the terms PEP and gateway do not capture that well.

--
Jonathan Hui