[6tsch] payload format for CoAP

"Raghuram Sudhaakar (rsudhaak)" <rsudhaak@cisco.com> Sat, 05 October 2013 15:29 UTC

Return-Path: <rsudhaak@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: 6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C580721F8F4A for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 08:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u+7sYx6H1Hcg for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 08:29:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CA2721F8F09 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 08:29:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2327; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1380986979; x=1382196579; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=XIAkGrxPGs4yAzZN+8UYjKyPTxW4faIGLGGN9jcrIUo=; b=VORg4nvAZcZ3oe7GiBG0UJB05fecsa4E2mpYlxQSdkMSQyv18LBXqss1 Srd0FC9u1Rr4ZH0HYy5+EAbRKzeHBIAVKxeCQei2bVw3vefXV0X6jhkNh 3u3FzRpJojcCkZ6QcBdGK0z8Ut8iv3Y8Rcu7elQzYTXc8yzvg89qatXOe Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.90,1039,1371081600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="265464357"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Oct 2013 15:29:38 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com []) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r95FTb1H016390 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 15:29:37 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 10:29:37 -0500
From: "Raghuram Sudhaakar (rsudhaak)" <rsudhaak@cisco.com>
To: "6tsch@ietf.org" <6tsch@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: payload format for CoAP
Thread-Index: AQHOwd+yn7Flwv2d9kmwyX3VZ2vcbA==
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2013 15:29:36 +0000
Message-ID: <2C3A8CAFDCAFCA41B8BF705CD9471C5B18609FCD@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2C3A8CAFDCAFCA41B8BF705CD9471C5B18609FCDxmbrcdx04ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [6tsch] payload format for CoAP
X-BeenThere: 6tsch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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" <6tsch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tsch>, <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tsch>
List-Post: <mailto:6tsch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch>, <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 15:29:43 -0000

During our call on 4/10 we suggested Name-Value pairs (NVP) and CBOR as the possible CoAP payload formats.

The line of discussion was

  1.  Obvious advantages of CBOR are related to control overhead. However the percentage advantage of CBOR over NVP is not established.
  2.  Constrained devices may not be able to handle the additional overhead of a CBOR parser. NVPs are easy to parse.
  3.  But, the CoAP messages are typically layer 5 transactions and the processing constraint may not be applicable.
  4.  There is a clear tradeoff w.r.t simplicity vs efficiency in making the choice.

I would like to call upon the group for more discussion on this topic so we can reach a consensus.