Re: [icnrg] request for comments on Requirements and Challenges for IoT over ICN

["Rahman, Akbar" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ravi,


Thanks.  I agree with your suggested approach for addressing my points.


Best Regards,


Akbar

From: Ravi Ravindran [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 3:24 PM
To: Rahman, Akbar <[e-mail]>; Dirk Kutscher <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: request for comments on Requirements and Challenges for IoT over ICN

Thanks Akbar, please see my comments inline.

Regards,
Ravi

From: Rahman, Akbar [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 11:05 AM
To: Dirk Kutscher
Cc: Ravi Ravindran; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: request for comments on Requirements and Challenges for IoT over ICN

Re-sending my comments as there appears to have been a mailing list problem the first time ...

/Akbar

From: Rahman, Akbar
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 2:47 PM
To: 'Dirk Kutscher' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: request for comments on Requirements and Challenges for IoT over ICN

Hi Dirk,


I read the draft and it was a very good piece of work overall.  I did however have the following comments/questions:


(1)    The reference to CORE [5] in section 3.2 is confusing.  The CORE WG is not really chartered for "network operators [to] use standard APIs to build common IoT gateways and servers for their customers".   Specifically, I think the references to network operators and gateways is confusing in the context of CORE WG.

I think the CORE WG should instead be described in a new section along with HTTP (which seems to be completely missing btw) where the model is the current popular RESTful Web Services approach.  See for example https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#section-2.2 and https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7252#section-1



Ravi> We will remove the CORE reference ,  and instead include some text around how work in CORE and HTTP-REST APIs are being used towards building such overlay IoT platforms.



(2)    Section 5.4 (Routing and Forwarding) should also reference the latest IETF protocols for routing in IoT specific networks as described in ROLL WG https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ .  My point is that there is already some divergence between traditional IP routing and some IoT specific routing (e.g. for low powered networks as covered in ROLL).  So this is another dimension that an ICT-IoT will have to take into consideration.

Ravi > Instead of 5.4, considering ROLL is in the context of current IP based deployment, we will address this comment in Section 3.2.

Best Regards,


Akbar


From: icnrg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Dirk Kutscher
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 4:12 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [icnrg] request for comments on Requirements and Challenges for IoT over ICN

Hi all,

friendly reminder.

Best regards,
Dirk

From: Dirk Kutscher
Sent: Dienstag, 16. Februar 2016 14:47
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: request for comments on Requirements and Challenges for IoT over ICN

Hi all,

In November, the authors of the two previous drafts on IoT/ICN submitted a merged version:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-icnrg-icniot-requirements/

We have not seen much feedback on this yet.

If would be great if people could give it a read and provided some feedback to the authors.

We'd like to move forward with it eventually and would like to have a new version before IETF-95 - so your comments would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Chairs