Re: [core] sleepy nodes

peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> Wed, 16 October 2013 12:46 UTC

Return-Path: <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
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 77F0711E81CE for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 05:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.154
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.154 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545]
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 EK7th6JsHWEJ for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 05:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59D9011E81D6 for <core@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 05:46:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from roundcube.xs4all.nl (roundcube4.xs4all.net [194.109.20.200]) by smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r9GCk3UY065177; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:46:05 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from stokcons@xs4all.nl)
Received: from AMontpellier-654-1-109-86.w90-0.abo.wanadoo.fr ([90.0.84.86]) by roundcube.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:46:03 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:46:03 +0200
From: peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
To: weigengyu <weigengyu@bupt.edu.cn>
Organization: vanderstok consultancy
Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
In-Reply-To: <528D351A2E31436C8EF5786A5254BDFF@WeiGengyuPC>
References: <49802db7bb1d96cfccc488402a8bcc77@xs4all.nl> <528D351A2E31436C8EF5786A5254BDFF@WeiGengyuPC>
Message-ID: <69dffe621aa77d01e1cb94a1d6871cbc@xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl (e0aMqidY5NwU8BgZlxmyH+EKNxJh6Vt/)
User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail
X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner
Cc: Core <core@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [core] sleepy nodes
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:46:35 -0000

Hi Gengyu,

Zach made a proposal what the proxy could look like.
For me the proxy probably is not "too much" resource constrained.
The Resource directory or the router may make an excellent host.
But I can also see manufacturers selling them in any form they like.

Greetings,

Peter


weigengyu schreef op 2013-10-16 04:43:
> Hi, perter,
> 
> "Taking the advice of Zach, that you only want to define a proxy leaves
> also many possibilities open, like: ...... "
> 
> Could you give further explanations about the proxy.
> Is the proxy a resource constrained node?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Gengyu
> 
> -----原始邮件----- From: peter van der Stok
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 7:49 PM
> To: Core ; akbar rahman
> Subject: [core] sleepy nodes
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> 
> reading the draft on the need for sleepy nodes by Akbar, I become more
> convinced that the subject is not right for IETF.
> Already defining a sleepy node is fraught with application oriented
> aspects.
> Taking the advice of Zach, that you only want to define a proxy leaves
> also many possibilities open, like:
> 
> Does the sleepy node communicate only with the proxy?
> Can the sleepy node send to other nodes than the proxy via multicast or
> unicast?
> Does the sleepy node need maintenance?
> Is the sleepy node initialized at the factory and it never listens to
> any messages afterwards?
> Or is there an initialization capability, eventually supported by a
> battery recharge.
> 
> 
> I can go on and on like this, (for example on timing constraints) and
> none of the questions will get satisfactory unanimous answers.
> Therefore, I remain with my conclusion that sleepy nodes are 
> interesting
> but too much conditioned by application constraints to define a proxy
> approach that is generally applicable.
> 
> If anything needs to be done I still think that the "mirror server"
> draft is the best choice because I recognize the boundary conditions.
> But the latter is a very application biased opinion.
> 
> Peter