Re: [Ace] Call for adoption draft-msahni-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport

[Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Just to remind you the call for adoption ends today.

Yours,
Daniel



On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 6:01 PM Mohit Sahni <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thanks Daniel and Hendrik, Since it has been a some time when we
> discussed about this draft, here is a summary of discussions that we
> had on this draft regarding the adoption:
>
> Brockhaus, Hendrik:
> >Thanks to Mohit for his request on rechartering and adoption. I support
> this.
>
> Panos Kampanakis:
> > I oppose adoption unless there is a compelling reason why. Also I am not
> sure where this draft would be implemented and used. If this is just for
> one or two vendors I don’t think ACE needs to spend the cycles.
>
> Brockhaus, Hendrik:
> >I think we have to accept that there are different protocols with
> different abilities chosen in different verticals.
>
> Michael Richardson:
> > I have no fundamental objection to this work, and I think that it should
> be adopted.
> >But, I think that it is worth doing more than just s/http/coap/.
> Plus some suggestions on the draft.
>
> Mohit Sahni:
> > Some of your suggestions should be discussed in the context of the
> LightWeight CMP profile draft
> > I will work on making it more clear what are the pros and cons of using
> a proxy vs direct communication
> > I will add the endpoint definitions and make resource discovery more
> clear in the draft.
> > This draft only defines how to use the CoAP transport for carrying the
> CMP messages. When and what CMP messages are sent should come under the CMP
> protocol implementation itself
>
> Olaf Bergmann:
> > One thing that might get in our way when doing this in ACE is the
> emerging input for draft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile. But otherwise,
> I do not see a strong reason for not adopting
> draft-msahni-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport.
>
> Brockhaus, Hendrik:
> > Actually this was first discussed in LAMPS, but as the draft focusses on
> CoAP transport and not on CMP specifics, the group had the opinion that ACE
> is the better home as here is the knowledge regarding CoAP.
>
> Thanks
> Mohit
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 12:14 PM Brockhaus, Hendrik
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Daniel
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for kicking the ball.
> >
> > I would appreciate the adoption of Mohits draft and I am also willing to
> review it.
> >
> >
> >
> > There are also implementation demonstrating CMP message transport on
> CoAP next to HTTP.
> >
> > https://github.com/siemens/embeddedCMP
> >
> > https://github.com/siemens/LightweightCmpRa
> >
> > Any feedback is welcome!
> >
> >
> >
> > Hendrik
> >
> >
> >
> > Von: Ace <[e-mail]> Im Auftrag von Daniel Migault
> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. Januar 2021 20:28
> > An: Ace Wg <[e-mail]>
> > Betreff: [Ace] Call for adoption draft-msahni-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > The charter approval by the IESG has been a bit delayed and is expected
> to be approved in the coming weeks. In the meanwhile, this email starts a
> call for adoption on work that has been included in the charter. Of course,
> adoption is contingent on the rechartering succeeding.
> >
> >
> >
> > The document called for adoption is
> draft-msahni-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport available here:
> >
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-msahni-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport-01
> >
> >
> >
> > Please state your opinion on whether this work should not or should be
> adopted by the WG and express your motivation for such a statement. The
> call for adoption closes on January 21.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yours,
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Daniel Migault
> >
> > Ericsson
>


-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson