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

"Rahman, Akbar" <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com> Tue, 06 August 2013 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E49A211E80A2 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2013 10:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CX22y-m0OIof for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2013 10:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out1.interdigital.com (smtp-out1.interdigital.com [64.208.228.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2461D21F9E31 for <core@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Aug 2013 10:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SAM.InterDigital.com ([10.30.2.11]) by smtp-out1.interdigital.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 6 Aug 2013 13:41:15 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 13:41:13 -0400
Message-ID: <D60519DB022FFA48974A25955FFEC08C0537E7C3@SAM.InterDigital.com>
In-Reply-To: <6E0184DF-5393-48F7-AE1C-C09B2415DFEC@sensinode.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [core] Do we need a CORE charter item for CoAP support ofSleepy Nodes?
Thread-Index: Ac6R6m5SGwnv+2NiRY+iO1k2HSoAnAA3+rxA
References: <D60519DB022FFA48974A25955FFEC08C0537E49C@SAM.InterDigital.com><51FBC0D2.2030909@ericsson.com> <51FEB8FF.9080101@anche.no><5c07f5eb4caba701bd1c5b99cebe14a4@xs4all.nl> <6E0184DF-5393-48F7-AE1C-C09B2415DFEC@sensinode.com>
From: "Rahman, Akbar" <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com>
To: Zach Shelby <zach@sensinode.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Aug 2013 17:41:15.0146 (UTC) FILETIME=[2627F6A0:01CE92CC]
Cc: core@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [core] Do we need a CORE charter item for CoAP support ofSleepy Nodes?
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: <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: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 17:41:20 -0000

Hi Zach,


Thanks to you and all the WG for the good debate on this topic.  I
think, Zach, that you touched on the right compromise with your
following statement


	"If we would like to document a setup to support such endpoints,
then it should probably done by just documenting something done in a
complete architecture 	for the sake of allowing re-use. We also have
existing solutions like Mirror Server that can be used in some cases
where that architecture is applicable..."


I agree.  The missing link though is that need to identify a new WG
deliverable for CoAP support of Sleepy Node for this (hence my initial
Email). We have NOT yet adopted the Mirror Server (or any of the other
proposals) for Sleepy Node support.  We need to do this or otherwise we
will be delivering a set of CoAP standards to the market with an
important functionality/guidance that is missing (i.e. Sleepy Node
support).  I think we as a WG recognized this when we formulated the
initial charter as we explicitly refer to support of "sleepy nodes" in
the charter several times.


Best Regards,


Akbar



-----Original Message-----
From: core-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:core-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Zach Shelby
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 10:43 AM
To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
Cc: core@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [core] Do we need a CORE charter item for CoAP support
ofSleepy Nodes?

I agree with Peter, and am also skeptical about this work item as it has
been discussed so far. 

This is really a problem that needs to be solved within a complete
architecture, and we don't really have that architecture here. Other
SDOs have or are solving this problem using CoRE mechanisms, for example
OMA Lightweight M2M already includes simple sleep (or in general
non-reachable CoAP endpoint support) using RD and queueing at a proxy.
Not to mention other L2 mechanisms or application layer designs that
already solve the problem. 

If we would like to document a setup to support such endpoints, then it
should probably done by just documenting something done in a complete
architecture for the sake of allowing re-use. We also have existing
solutions like Mirror Server that can be used in some cases where that
architecture is applicable. Inventing new solutions outside a full
architecture and real deployments needs seems like research to me. 

Finally, we just have way too much work on our plate right now in CoRE
to even think about taking more on. First, we need to ship Observe and
Block to the IESG (and through the whole process), then we have three
other work items we've just started on. I would think it is not time to
discuss something new until we're pretty stable with those three (close
to shipping them e.g.). Taking sleep work on now would just distract us
from making progress. 

Zach

On Aug 5, 2013, at 9:35 AM, peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> core@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core

--
Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd.
http://www.sensinode.com @SensinodeIoT
Mobile: +358 40 7796297
Twitter: @zach_shelby
LinkedIn: http://fi.linkedin.com/in/zachshelby
6LoWPAN Book: http://6lowpan.net




_______________________________________________
core mailing list
core@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core