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

["Kovatsch Matthias" <[e-mail]>]

Dear list

I still think radio duty cycling (virtually always-on with a duty cycly << 1%) is a preferable way to do it because it can be implemented in an independent lower layer without the need for any infrastructure.

However, there are very valid scenarios for sleepy nodes (the application decides when to sleep and wake up). For these we need infrastructure at the application layer, which should be defined in a standard way. Thus, we should work in this!

Ciao
Matthias


From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Keoh, Sye Loong
Sent: Freitag, 2. August 2013 21:03
To: Rahman, Akbar; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [core] Do we need a CORE charter item for CoAP support of Sleepy Nodes?

Dear all,

I think sleepy node is an important topic, and most of the sensors and actuators need to conserve energy. Therefore, I think we need to tackle this issue. Yes, would agree to have a CoRE charter item for sleepy nodes.

cheers
Sye Loong
________________________________
From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [[e-mail]] on behalf of Rahman, Akbar [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 6:02 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [core] Do we need a CORE charter item for CoAP support of Sleepy Nodes?
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

________________________________
The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.