IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] +exi

Paul Duffy <paduffy@cisco.com> Fri, 10 February 2012 18:54 UTC

Return-Path: <paduffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35A2021F8813 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:54:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fFPZ5FRWsJFQ for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:54:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8921221F8812 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:54:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=paduffy@cisco.com; l=2108; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1328900052; x=1330109652; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Rtu3Jc628SbyBpPVJZrRFlrdkMmpmcJZ9a0BZh7gn6U=; b=PW5xLNVrov90uOPzS/LipG27GJWUBxP9YkzKBRA02OgeHiKFQBZ4vQPf nn+gVERDR5nCh8b6CASuaKXgdqocyyl9YwYEB8hJu8CMXMaHpj0ht7XNS ROoYDLTXP/EUtivQVXZKNSpjth40B8ssr4Vc5tCcjfPKWp0NVDtymcMQ/ w=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,397,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="65885425"
Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Feb 2012 18:54:11 +0000
Received: from [10.61.82.74] (ams3-vpn-dhcp4683.cisco.com [10.61.82.74]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1AIqxAL000782; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:53:00 GMT
Message-ID: <4F356773.1060306@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:52:35 -0800
From: Paul Duffy <paduffy@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Zach Shelby <zach@sensinode.com>
References: <CB59D465.18D85%psaintan@cisco.com> <86F0E68C-8D18-4F9A-86C5-0CC93D406238@sensinode.com>
In-Reply-To: <86F0E68C-8D18-4F9A-86C5-0CC93D406238@sensinode.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:16:34 -0800
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, psaintan <psaintan@cisco.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Thomas Herbst <therbst@silverspringnet.com>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] +exi
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: paduffy@cisco.com
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:54:18 -0000

I can review.  I took the AI from Zigbee Alliance

I'm going to propose SEP2 adopt what I outlined below until/if directed 
otherwise.

We have an ongoing interop schedule for which we must meet spec content 
deadlines.

Cheers


On 2/10/2012 4:28 AM, Zach Shelby wrote:
> Hi,
>
> That's right, slipped my todo list. Pointers to fairly similar documents appreciated as a template, first time writing this kind of draft.
>
> Paul, let's keep in touch directly regarding this.
>
> Zach
>
> On Feb 10, 2012, at 4:52 AM, psaintan wrote:
>
>> As I recall, Zach Shelby was going to write a short draft about the
>> registration requirements for +exi...
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg03981.html
>>
>> I haven't seen that pop out yet.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 2/9/12 12:54 PM, "Paul Duffy"<paduffy@cisco.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> We are closing this SEP2 issue in the next few days.
>>>
>>> Consensus seems to be (?):
>>>
>>> Content_Type: application/sep+xml
>>>
>>> ... or ...
>>>
>>> Content_Type: application/sep+exi
>>>
>>> The first indicating POX-to-native objects processing only, the second
>>> indicating EXI-to-native processing (no intermediate XML ... its not a
>>> compression).  May be further extended to support variants of EXI
>>> processing.
>>>
>>> Going once, going twice, ....
>>>
>>> We need to get this registered with IANA, etc.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/17/2011 7:11 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>>>> On 18 December 2011 06:34, Zach Shelby<zach@sensinode.com>   wrote:
>>>>> I don't find the SchemaId all that useful. First of all, you need to invoke
>>>>> your EXI parser to even get at that. It is more useful to immediately look
>>>>> at the content-type to decide which parser to throw a representation at. A
>>>>> strictly defined foo+exi registration would tell you that nicely.
>>>> ISTM that a link relation type for schema would make some sort of
>>>> difference.  The JSON schema draft had a "describedby" relation type
>>>> that might fit the bill (though "schema" is shorter).
>>>>

v2.2.1 | Report a Bug | By Email