Re: [recipe] Application layer

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