Re: [core] Do we need a CORE charter item for CoAP support of Sleepy Nodes?

In contrast to the earlier mails I am personally not convinced we should 
do (much) work on sleepy nodes.
In the simplest level 3 communication case, a sleepy node needs 
intialization of operational parameters, is switched on, and sends 
regularly data to an IP address.
More specifically, the IP address can be an MPL multicast address.
Anything more complex needs to be done with a proxy.
In my opinion SDOs like OMA, ZigBee, or BACnet, etc. have very different 
opinions on what such a proxy should do and how to communicate between 
the sleepy node an the proxy. They are best positioned to define the 
proxy in the context of their organization.

In the limit, at IETF, we just need to define a MIB for the 
initialization of the sleepy node.
If we want to do more, I think the draft by Matthieu Vial covers the 
case quite adequately.

Peter van der Stok

Pierpaolo Giacomin schreef op 2013-08-04 22:26:
> On 08/02/2013 05:23 PM, Salvatore Loreto wrote:
> I do think we should have in CORE a deliverable for CoAP support of
> Sleepy Nodes,
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> we have seen a lot of ideas and mail discussion about this topic one
> year ago,
> and the 4 individual submissions (if I am not wrong there are also a
> couple of the expired drafts on the topic)
> on the same subject listed by Akbar is a clear sign of interest and
> energy to work on it
> 
> cheers
> /Sal
> 
> --
> Salvatore Loreto, PhD
> www.sloreto.com
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/1/13 6:02 PM, Rahman, Akbar wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Carsten asked me to send this message out to the WG list as we did not
> have a chance to discuss the Sleepy Node topic in this IETF due to a
> lack of time on the agenda.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> We have several current I-Ds in CORE (and LWIG) that discusses the
> topic of Sleepy Nodes. Among those are:
> 
> draft-dijk-core-sleepy-reqs-00
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dijk-core-sleepy-reqs/>
> 
> draft-dijk-core-sleepy-solutions-01
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dijk-core-sleepy-solutions/>
> 
> draft-hong-lwig-sleepynode-problem-statement-00
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hong-lwig-sleepynode-problem-statement/>
> 
> draft-rahman-core-sleepy-03
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rahman-core-sleepy/>
> 
> Hence the following question to the WG:
> 
> ·Should we have a CORE deliverable for CoAP support of Sleepy Nodes?
> 
> Please write back with your thoughts!
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Akbar
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> core@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> core@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core
> 
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> core@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core