Re: [core] New Version Notification fordraft-rahman-core-sleepy-nodes-do-we-need-00.txt

[Zach Shelby <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 15, 2013, at 10:26 AM, "Rahman, Akbar" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 	"This is in practice realised with a Proxy and an RD in the same box. An RD registration parameter is used to indicate that a node is in queue 	mode. From there on the proxy queues all incoming requests to the node, which are released upon reception of a registration update request from the 	node. If the WG wants, this could fairly easily be documented in the Resource Directory draft maintaining compatibility with OMA Lightweight."

And as Peter rightly points out, if you go to far you are into lots of application specific issues. The trick is if we can document the bare minimum of the protocol and interface mechanisms needed to support those different applications. 

> I think this would be a good first step to supporting these type of "intermittent reachability" nodes.  Bu it would still be worth having a discussion to see if we need to support more elaborate solutions like the Mirror Server.  The answer can always be "No (at least not in CORE)".  But until we have the discussion we cannot really conclude that.

Personally I do think this is worth documenting Mirror Server in the WG, but I don't think it solves the (intermittently reachable node) problem broadly enough to be a generic solution. So we should slowly move this towards a WG document as we get other things done first, and as there are people really implementing and using it. 

Zach

-- 
Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd.
http://www.sensinode.com @SensinodeIoT
Mobile: [phone]
Twitter: @zach_shelby
LinkedIn: http://fi.linkedin.com/in/zachshelby
6LoWPAN Book: http://6lowpan.net