IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [core] 🔔 WG adoption of draft-vanderstok-core-etch-00

Alexander Pelov <a@ackl.io> Thu, 28 April 2016 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <a@ackl.io>
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 345C812D7EF for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 07:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 vJTouV3dRId5 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 07:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (relay4-d.mail.gandi.net [IPv6:2001:4b98:c:538::196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F3DB12D7D0 for <core@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 07:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:660:7301:3728:ad51:ac04:6256:1a82] (unknown [IPv6:2001:660:7301:3728:ad51:ac04:6256:1a82]) (Authenticated sender: alex@ackl.io) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EBA54172101; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 16:51:45 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
From: Alexander Pelov <a@ackl.io>
In-Reply-To: <E6C166D8-C828-4212-AF09-0E53BE0F9FAF@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 16:52:10 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6000D470-4534-4EB1-A644-307E30203D6E@ackl.io>
References: <E6C166D8-C828-4212-AF09-0E53BE0F9FAF@ericsson.com>
To: Jaime Jiménez <jaime.jimenez@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/oxKSu6MN1m9yQoiZCrRxFwaK05E>
Cc: "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [core] 🔔 WG adoption of draft-vanderstok-core-etch-00
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <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: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 14:51:50 -0000

Dear all,

I am in favor for adopting the document as a WG item.

Both FETCH and PATCH are adding missing functionality to the set of standard CoAP verbs. They provide semantics which are already present in standard HTTP, or that will be standardized soon.

For non-constrained networks and/or devices their lack may be a matter of personal feelings or slight inconveniences. For constrained networks or constrained devices, their addition provides powerful methods to significantly limit the data sent on the air + simplify the APIs. The functionality provided by FETCH and PATCH could be to some extent emulated with POSTs, but many of the benefits we have from RESTful applications are lost. 

Through the design of the function set of the latest COMI/COOL proposal, we’ve passed through several iterations and we’ve investigated FETCH+PATCH approach VS no-FETCH and no-PATCH solution. The latter required introducing new CoAP option and was generally more complex. Some things were simply impossible without the use of POST.

My personal take on this is: we need FETCH and PATCH. The work on the document advances very well and there are several key people actively contributing to it. 

+1

Best,
Alexander

> Le 28 avr. 2016 à 16:05, Jaime Jiménez <jaime.jimenez@ericsson.com> a écrit :
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> going through the item list, in Buenos Aires we discussed the adoption of draft-vanderstok-core-etch-00 as WG item. Back then there was room consensus with 12 people in favor (+ 4 more on the jabber) and noone against. 
> 
> This work is needed in order to keep using PATCH link updates on the RD and also for the COMI work that has already been adopted as of this week. 
> 
> This is a one-week call for confirmation on that decision, so if there are objections please voice them on the mailing list by 2016-05-06.
> 
> Ciao,
> - - Jaime Jimenez
> 
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> core@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email