Re: [recipe] Application layer

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
> 
> 