Re: [Anima-bootstrap] CoAP mandatory?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 01 March 2017 14:37 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima-bootstrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima-bootstrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AB7C129516 for <anima-bootstrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 06:37:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ONiUzV6g3ubC for <anima-bootstrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 06:37:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1CDF1294A3 for <anima-bootstrap@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 06:37:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42685E20D; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 10:00:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C9926381A; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 09:37:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Liubing \(Leo\)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45C2EA8533@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <6525c5f0b6e040b683ccd9c43b1c5e2f@VI1PR9003MB0237.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <14831.1481139454@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <d9aba3a07d14400f88f22329abc00128@XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com> <CAH51uSdK_BHgFKXzpp2XJ4H9fEqkkLynFLjV5PTn6Y8EHSFz-g@mail.gmail.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45C2E940C1@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com> <0c7b995c954746b8a58ae8a3399588ba@XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45C2E96D65@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com> <27173.1488308037@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45C2EA4DDB@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com> <07A8771E-0D92-40B2-B880-50EE58D816A1@tzi.org> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45C2EA8533@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 09:37:46 -0500
Message-ID: <27848.1488379066@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima-bootstrap/1sZBtqViAE9oyCYJgdz9WDdsoiE>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, "anima-bootstrap@ietf.org" <anima-bootstrap@ietf.org>, peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>, "Panos Kampanakis \(pkampana\)" <pkampana@cisco.com>, "Kumar, Sandeep" <sandeep.kumar@philips.com>
Subject: Re: [Anima-bootstrap] CoAP mandatory?
X-BeenThere: anima-bootstrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the bootstrap design team of the ANIMA WG <anima-bootstrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima-bootstrap>, <mailto:anima-bootstrap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima-bootstrap/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima-bootstrap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-bootstrap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima-bootstrap>, <mailto:anima-bootstrap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 14:37:49 -0000

Liubing (Leo) <leo.liubing@huawei.com> wrote:
    > [Bing] Sure:)
    > I was just curious about why there might not be consensus as Michael mentioned.

I think that there are three points of view:

1) ANIMA won't run on class 2 devices anyway, and bigger devices can just do
   HTTPS/EST.  Why complicate my life?

2) The CoAP mechanism is not well enough defined as yet, so we don't know
   what it even means.
        Options are:  CoAP/DTLS, CoAP/OSCOAP, CoAP/OSCOMP/CoMI (device is passive)
        IPIP proxy mechanism not well enough defined, so what does that even mean.
   Best to stick with things we know.

3) MyCompany wants to do mechanism X rather than CoAP, so if we can't have X,
   then let's specify a method too big for small devices, and in market
   confusion for small devices, MyCompany will dominate.
   (where X is various mixes of 1x, EAP, PANA, Thread, ZigbeeIP, etc.)


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-