Re: [recipe] Application layer

JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com> Fri, 12 February 2010 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <jvasseur@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: recipe@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: recipe@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F48C28C1CB for <recipe@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:52:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.683
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.683 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.916, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qYBlpmiuUWxS for <recipe@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:52:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A90E828C1C8 for <recipe@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:52:57 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-3.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAGAydUutJV2b/2dsb2JhbACbAXSoMpdKhFgEjiY
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,462,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="212295515"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Feb 2010 18:54:16 +0000
Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o1CIrqfi026804; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:54:16 GMT
Received: from xfe-ams-202.cisco.com ([144.254.231.96]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:54:12 +0100
Received: from ams-jvasseur-8713.cisco.com ([10.55.201.132]) by xfe-ams-202.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:54:12 +0100
Message-Id: <E6ECE1AC-1573-42A6-94D0-EDD8DD1B32F1@cisco.com>
From: JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>
To: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: <968747.90846.qm@web51302.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:54:10 +0100
References: <968747.90846.qm@web51302.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Feb 2010 18:54:12.0238 (UTC) FILETIME=[C412F2E0:01CAAC14]
Cc: recipe@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [recipe] Application layer
X-BeenThere: recipe@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RECIPE \(Reducing Energy Consumption with Internet Protocols Exploration\)" <recipe.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recipe>, <mailto:recipe-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/recipe>
List-Post: <mailto:recipe@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:recipe-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recipe>, <mailto:recipe-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:52:58 -0000

Hi,

On Feb 12, 2010, at 9:25 AM, Tom Herbst wrote:

> Not sure I understand Zigbee vs v6/lowpan since all of the
> work being done on Smart Energy 2.0 is v6/6lowpan and
> either tcp/http or COAP provided RESTful api.
>
> Several of the people defining this will be in Anaheim.
>

+1. SE 2.0 brings the convergence that we were looking for.
SE 2.0 is using IP.

JP.

> tom
>
> --- On Thu, 2/11/10, Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>; wrote:
>
>> From: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>;
>> Subject: [recipe] Application layer
>> To: recipe@ietf.org
>> Date: Thursday, February 11, 2010, 7:55 PM
>> Bruce Nordman and I have been
>> discussing whether we should re-convene a Bar BOF in
>> Anaheim, focusing on topics beyond the usual Zigbee-vs.-IPv6
>> or LowPAN discussions. In particular, I think that the
>> current stovepipe application layers (e.g., in BACS and the
>> other control-oriented building networks) are not very
>> helpful as a long-term architecture. We also might want to
>> think about the interfaces that need to be exposed - we
>> don't want our architecture to look like the 3GPP diagram...
>> (If you've taken a look at the NIST interface diagram for
>> the smart grid, this comparison is not purely theoretical,
>> although obviously the protocols are completely different.)
>>
>> Does this sound like something of interest?
>>
>> (There is some work in the SIP Forum context, but this is
>> not [just] about a particular protocol.)
>>
>> Henning
>> _______________________________________________
>> recipe mailing list
>> recipe@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recipe
>>
> _______________________________________________
> recipe mailing list
> recipe@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recipe