Re: [recipe] Application layer

JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com> Fri, 12 February 2010 19:34 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 A009128C1BD for <recipe@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:34:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.879, 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 2AILXh+4wn33 for <recipe@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:34:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37DF73A6870 for <recipe@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:34:14 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: ams-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuwAAOc8dUuQ/uCWe2dsb2JhbACbARUBARYkBh2ne5dOhFgEjiY
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,462,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="57031080"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.150]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Feb 2010 19:35:14 +0000
Received: from xbh-ams-201.cisco.com (xbh-ams-201.cisco.com [144.254.75.7]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o1CJZEPI028131; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:35:14 GMT
Received: from xfe-ams-201.cisco.com ([144.254.231.95]) by xbh-ams-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:35:14 +0100
Received: from ams-jvasseur-8713.cisco.com ([10.55.201.132]) by xfe-ams-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:35:13 +0100
Message-Id: <6EC0B5E2-9EDA-4E90-94AC-22C82AC7EE42@cisco.com>
From: JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>
To: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: <F00404F5-9A41-427C-A60D-264ED1547F48@cs.columbia.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:35:12 +0100
References: <968747.90846.qm@web51302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <E6ECE1AC-1573-42A6-94D0-EDD8DD1B32F1@cisco.com> <F00404F5-9A41-427C-A60D-264ED1547F48@cs.columbia.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Feb 2010 19:35:13.0548 (UTC) FILETIME=[7F210CC0:01CAAC1A]
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 19:34:18 -0000

The Zigbee alliance.

On Feb 12, 2010, at 8:31 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> Who defines/defined "SE 2.0"?
>
> On Feb 12, 2010, at 1:54 PM, JP Vasseur wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>