Re: [recipe] Application layer

Zigbee is doing the heavy lifting in terms of putting
the pieces together, but it is intended to be all 
standards based elements including data elements from 
the IEC CIM (IEC 61968).   

I doubt the output will be prefect, but the effort is good
enough that a completely parallel effort seems silly.  

I might even be willing to buy beer for a bar BOF where 
the people working on SE 2.0 introduce their work and look for
assistance.  Service discovery has been especially tricky.  
Just do mDNS is an easier discussion on devices beyond
802.15.4, sometimes sleeping or otherwise constrained devices. 

tom

--- On Fri, 2/12/10, JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com> wrote:

> From: JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>
> Subject: Re: [recipe] Application layer
> To: "Henning Schulzrinne" <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
> Cc: recipe@ietf.org, "Tom Herbst" <tomherbst@yahoo.com>
> Date: Friday, February 12, 2010, 11:35 AM
> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> 