Re: [smartobjectdir] Call for Review of draft-iab-smart-object-architecture-04.txt, "Architectural Considerations in Smart Object Networking"

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 30 August 2014 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CB181A0AF0; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.559
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01] autolearn=unavailable
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6SjxGh8xXvPB; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C70981A0AED; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C00D120029; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 17:08:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 94A3263AE8; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 17:04:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72D81638D7; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 17:04:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: IAB <iab@iab.org>
In-Reply-To: <D1D25EE7-9B6F-47BD-9D39-3EC8B9288D98@iab.org>
References: <D1D25EE7-9B6F-47BD-9D39-3EC8B9288D98@iab.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 17:04:18 -0400
Message-ID: <18805.1409432658@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/smartobjectdir/mHFfBbC4NOZ5PA1qt0ZKJTh5wIE
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:47:17 -0700
Cc: IETF SmartObjectDir <smartobjectdir@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, IETF Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [smartobjectdir] Call for Review of draft-iab-smart-object-architecture-04.txt, "Architectural Considerations in Smart Object Networking"
X-BeenThere: smartobjectdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <smartobjectdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/smartobjectdir>, <mailto:smartobjectdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/smartobjectdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:smartobjectdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:smartobjectdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartobjectdir>, <mailto:smartobjectdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 21:04:23 -0000

IAB Chair <iab-chair@iab.org> wrote:
    > This is a call for review of "Architectural Considerations in Smart
    > Object Networking" prior to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC.

    > The document is available for inspection here:
    > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-smart-object-architecture/

    > The Call for Review will last until 24 September 2014.  Please send
    > comments to iab@iab.org.

I read it.

I found nothing surprising in it.  I also didn't find anything to disagree
with, but on the other hand, I am not sure I found anything specific that I
could disagree with.

I think it is a nice document, and details some useful network patterns,
so in that, it is very useful.   Are there any other patterns that we missed?
I can't think of any.  I did say that in the Device-to-Device pattern,
that there was some implicit assumption that the wireless network was a
single hop, and had no routers, and therefore devices/manufacturers have to
agree on a layer 1/2.   The ability to route is later mentioned in other
sections.

I would have liked better (cooler...) terms for sections 2.1/2.2./2.3/2.4,
but I don't have any to offer.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-