Re: [core] Comments on SOAP over CoAP

[Guido Moritz <[e-mail]>]

Linyi,

 

indeed I am not completely sure if this work fits in the IETF, working on
this in OASIS (especially in the WS-DD TC, i.e. DPWS) might be another and
maybe the right option. But as stated in the draft, we also wanted to point
at issues coming up when using CoAP. And yes, we are using CoAP not as it
was intended. But the same happened to HTTP (e.g. XMPP over HTTP ‘BOSH’,
WebDav, SOAP over HTTP…). So even if CoAP was designed as a RESTful
protocol, it might be ‘misused’ in future developments just as reliable
transport mechanism (as we are doing with SOAP over CoAP). So we wanted to
point at the critical issues that might have to be changed.

 

For example having a payload in a POST response is required by all such
kinds of Foo over CoAP solutions. POST is too unclear as it just says
‘server, process this and do whatever you have to do with it’. And in our
case this requires maybe a payload in the response also.

 

So since we have implementations for DPWS and EXI for TelosB motes, we are
quite optimistic to push DPWS/SOAP down to these constrained environments
also. Maybe not ‘Class 1’ devices and only ‘Class 2’ (c.f. Carstens
classification), but this is what we try to find out. So the CoAP binding is
just another building block to be required. 

 

Best,

Guido

 

Von: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] Im Auftrag von
Linyi Tian
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. März 2011 12:09
An: 'core'
Betreff: [core] Comments on SOAP over CoAP

 

Hi, Guido Moritz

I want to know why this is related to constrained environment. I gues the
sOaP over UDP (OASIS work) is not for constrained devices. It is just a
binding (same level as HTTP Binding)  to address two scenarios: one request
& request/response in UDP.

During the meeting I also asked the question why do we need large data in
response to POST request. This feature is required if we want to work on
SoAp over CoAP. I am not sure whether this is too much for CoAP. It may not
fit our charter and objective in CORE.

What do you think?

Cheers,
Linyi