[core] http observe unification

Peter Bigot <pab@peoplepowerco.com> Thu, 28 October 2010 12:41 UTC

Return-Path: <pab@peoplepowerco.com>
X-Original-To: core@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1FAD3A6882 for <core@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 05:41:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.704
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.704 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.272, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NLMgB0GZUOll for <core@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 05:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E9DD3A684A for <core@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 05:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm9 with SMTP id 9so1948759fxm.31 for <core@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 05:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.74.202 with SMTP id v10mr3852890faj.114.1288269789105; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 05:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.97.10 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 05:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 07:43:09 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTikcog5b3hB-bzyY2eBSQOiq2MVSVM09uj12tSo=@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Bigot <pab@peoplepowerco.com>
To: fluffy@cisco.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00248c11e6b1278f3c0493acaf1a"
Cc: core <core@ietf.org>
Subject: [core] http observe unification
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:41:18 -0000

Cullen:

In the telecon yesterday, you objected to my proposal that the solution to
the observation problem be left to designers of specific systems.  It
sounded like you felt a reference document describing alternative approaches
that applications might take would not be adequate.  Could you elaborate a
little more here on what you believe CoAP must provide, and in what
timeframe?

I understood you to say that some IETF working group was nearly complete
with a proposed standard way to implement observation in HTTP.  Is that the
Httpbis group?  To which of their documents were you referring?
draft-loreto-http-bidirectional is somewhat relevant (wrt streaming
responses).

The clearly relevant one is draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe
s
, but that's based on SIP event notification.  Were we to take that
approach, it might be best to define a CoAP-like protocol "csip", rather
than integrate that functionality directly into CoAP.  On first glance, it
appears this would be at least as much work as defining CoAP has been.  It
would, though, give us a solution to observation, notification, and group
communication that is compatible with the HTTP family of protocols, so is
certainly worth considering.

Thanks.

Peter