Re: [core] pubsub and sleepy node proxy

peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> Fri, 04 September 2015 13:50 UTC

Return-Path: <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48AD41B4B68 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 06:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 HhQDvGvLSVbo for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 06:50:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lb3-smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net (lb3-smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net [194.109.24.29]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B7CE1B4B5E for <core@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 06:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.xs4all.nl ([194.109.20.211]) by smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net with ESMTP id D1pw1r00f4ZF39u011pwPS; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 15:49:57 +0200
Received: from AMontpellier-654-1-89-216.w90-28.abo.wanadoo.fr ([90.28.128.216]) by webmail.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Fri, 04 Sep 2015 15:49:56 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 15:49:56 +0200
From: peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
To: "Rahman, Akbar" <Akbar.Rahman@interdigital.com>
Organization: vanderstok consultancy
Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
In-Reply-To: <36F5869FE31AB24485E5E3222C288E1F347AFBF4@NABESITE.InterDigital.com>
References: <25093c7d75ade3f78e471b55816d0bac@xs4all.nl> <36F5869FE31AB24485E5E3222C288E1F347AFBF4@NABESITE.InterDigital.com>
Message-ID: <9efa234430f9fa6be3895edffc09cb4e@xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl (DvDTPMQckzz9SUlPAA8/I6r6Yqc61YNK)
User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/DcJ4PuYyGFh2Z2XBKSyZDRYgUpU>
Cc: Michael Koster <Michael.koster@arm.com>, Core <core@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [core] pubsub and sleepy node proxy
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 13:50:03 -0000

Hi Akbar,

thanks for your support.
I once read the draft you mentioned, but forgot about it.

I will return with some suggestions later next week,

Peter

Rahman, Akbar schreef op 2015-09-03 06:45:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> 
> I am still reading the pubsub draft, but did want to give support for
> your sleepy node draft (draft-zotti-core-sleepy-nodes-03).  The sleepy
> node proxy concept that you describe will be useful in many scenarios.
>  One related comment that I did have on your draft is that it seems a
> bit fixated on the 6LoWPAN scenario.  But as we have discussed many
> times during IETF meetings and on various mailing lists, the sleepy
> node scenario is useful beyond 6LoWPAN deployments (e.g.
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-core-sleepy-sensors-01 ).
> So I think it would be useful if you clarified that in your draft.
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> 
> Akbar
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: core [mailto:core-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of peter van der 
> Stok
> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 3:06 AM
> To: Michael Koster <Michael.koster@arm.com>; Core <core@ietf.org>
> Subject: [core] pubsub and sleepy node proxy
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> Looking at the pubsub draft and at our sleepy node proxy draft, I come
> to the conclusion that there are good arguments to maintain both.
> 
> Following the reasoning of Matthieu Vial, there are already a good
> arguments for the sleepy node (SN) proxy (aka mirror server) to exist
> next to the RD.
> Namely:
> Where an end-point can delegate its links to the RD for discovery, an
> end-point can delegate the links AND the associated resource values to
> the SN-proxy.
> The SN-proxy resources have the same lifetime as SN resources.
> The SN-proxy resource values are directly linked to the resources of a 
> given SN.
> 
> In contrast the pubsub handles anonymous values. The origin can be
> added but that means adding attributes to the topics.
> The pubsub handles the more abstract topics, where the SN-proxy is
> concerned with the resources.
> The lifetime of the values in the pubsub server is not directly linked
> to the lifetime of the originating resources.
> 
> For me these are the arguments that motivate the existence of the
> pubsub draft next to the sleepy node draft.
> 
> Looking forward to your reaction.
> 
> Greetings
> Teresa and Peter
> 
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> core@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core