Re: [6tisch] xxx-bootstrap

peter van der Stok <> Thu, 01 December 2016 08:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C286129C33 for <>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 00:40:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.621
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bXM_GZs6lJmI for <>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 00:40:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2F83129C36 for <>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 00:39:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([IPv6:2001:888:0:22:194:109:20:208]) by with ESMTP id EYfq1u00D4ydcfa01Yfqy7; Thu, 01 Dec 2016 09:39:50 +0100
Received: from 2001:983:a264:1:482f:dfa5:11e6:f340 by with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Thu, 01 Dec 2016 09:39:50 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2016 09:39:50 +0100
From: peter van der Stok <>
To: Michael Richardson <>
Organization: vanderstok consultancy
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Message-ID: <>
X-Sender: (W3CPou4J0M91F/i6f7UmOchplCG2o/bl)
User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 6tisch <>, sandeep kumar <>,
Subject: Re: [6tisch] xxx-bootstrap
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2016 08:40:03 -0000

Hi Michael,

thanks for a clear answer.
> I think the Registrar/JCE will need to support three protocols:
> 1) a push protocol over CoAP.
> 2) a pull protocol (RFC7030/EST).
> 3) a protocol to talk to the MASA (TBD)

As discussed earlier, having a push/pull agnostic protocol would be 
nice. (and probably feasible)
As stated earlier, I think that discovery and which node starts the 
bootstrap protocol (BRSKI) is very much installation/technology 
dependent, and should be done in another document.

My intention was to reduce the coding effort of the registrar by making 
1) and 2) as similar as can be hoped for;
while payload considerations are of secondary importance.
My hope being that a manufacturer will deliver a registrar box 
supporting both coap and http versions.

When the consensus is that adding coap is already such an extra effort 
that code sharing between http and coap versions does not alleviate the 
then any solution for coap that concentrates on payload reduction is 
fine by me.