IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [core] pubsub and sleepy node proxy

"Rahman, Akbar" <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com> Thu, 03 September 2015 04:45 UTC

Return-Path: <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 294EF1A908E for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 21:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.512
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=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 depK2R-k9yYX for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 21:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-in1.interdigital.com (host-64-47-120-121.masergy.com [64.47.120.121]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB9B11AC3BF for <core@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 21:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1441255550-06daaa5cf3132200001-aa7cYp
Received: from NISSONITE.InterDigital.com (nissonite.interdigital.com [10.2.64.252]) by smtp-in1.interdigital.com with ESMTP id ImsI60Dk33XYD03f (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 03 Sep 2015 00:45:51 -0400 (EDT)
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com
Received: from NABESITE.InterDigital.com ([fe80::4d8a:a889:67c2:f009]) by NISSONITE.InterDigital.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 00:45:46 -0400
From: "Rahman, Akbar" <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com>
To: "consultancy@vanderstok.org" <consultancy@vanderstok.org>, Michael Koster <Michael.koster@arm.com>, Core <core@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [core] pubsub and sleepy node proxy
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: RE: [core] pubsub and sleepy node proxy
Thread-Index: AQHQ47uC+G7xgzFvBUWihAonddpx2Z4qPB1g
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 04:45:45 +0000
Message-ID: <36F5869FE31AB24485E5E3222C288E1F347AFBF4@NABESITE.InterDigital.com>
References: <25093c7d75ade3f78e471b55816d0bac@xs4all.nl>
In-Reply-To: <25093c7d75ade3f78e471b55816d0bac@xs4all.nl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.3.247.108]
x-exclaimer-md-config: bb79a19d-f711-475c-a0f9-4d93b71c94dd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Barracuda-Connect: nissonite.interdigital.com[10.2.64.252]
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1441255551
X-Barracuda-Encrypted: AES128-SHA
X-Barracuda-URL: https://10.1.245.3:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi
X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at interdigital.com
X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1
X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00
X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests=
X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.22181 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/v_rUMngAhfuZhTVVea488cOdJVA>
Subject: Re: [core] pubsub and sleepy node proxy
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 03 Sep 2015 04:45:54 -0000

Hi Peter,


I am still reading the pubsub draft, but did want to give support for your sleepy node draft (draft-zotti-core-sleepy-nodes-03).  The sleepy node proxy concept that you describe will be useful in many scenarios.  One related comment that I did have on your draft is that it seems a bit fixated on the 6LoWPAN scenario.  But as we have discussed many times during IETF meetings and on various mailing lists, the sleepy node scenario is useful beyond 6LoWPAN deployments (e.g. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-core-sleepy-sensors-01 ).    So I think it would be useful if you clarified that in your draft.


Best Regards,


Akbar

-----Original Message-----
From: core [mailto:core-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of peter van der Stok
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 3:06 AM
To: Michael Koster <Michael.koster@arm.com>; Core <core@ietf.org>
Subject: [core] pubsub and sleepy node proxy

Hi Michael,

Looking at the pubsub draft and at our sleepy node proxy draft, I come to the conclusion that there are good arguments to maintain both.

Following the reasoning of Matthieu Vial, there are already a good arguments for the sleepy node (SN) proxy (aka mirror server) to exist next to the RD.
Namely:
Where an end-point can delegate its links to the RD for discovery, an end-point can delegate the links AND the associated resource values to the SN-proxy.
The SN-proxy resources have the same lifetime as SN resources.
The SN-proxy resource values are directly linked to the resources of a given SN.

In contrast the pubsub handles anonymous values. The origin can be added but that means adding attributes to the topics.
The pubsub handles the more abstract topics, where the SN-proxy is concerned with the resources.
The lifetime of the values in the pubsub server is not directly linked to the lifetime of the originating resources.

For me these are the arguments that motivate the existence of the pubsub draft next to the sleepy node draft.

Looking forward to your reaction.

Greetings
Teresa and Peter

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email