Re: [smartpowerdir] question on identification of sensors

Vint Cerf <vint@google.com> Wed, 28 July 2010 19:47 UTC

Return-Path: <vint@google.com>
X-Original-To: smartpowerdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: smartpowerdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E825728C192 for <smartpowerdir@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 CQLZaYSGGCZ2 for <smartpowerdir@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7E53A688E for <smartpowerdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz1.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz1.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.65]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o6SJlQ0E031010 for <smartpowerdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:47:26 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1280346446; bh=b3/BVxiwAzlOc83w2U6U/OQQlvA=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=GdMNQr8aF2ooXHWQ31gnay6Jbzw/980MKN5B0t3CAkgEP+wmbQdZoXcpJONtxWBsX YiZTNDfRCK0K8O8OfS6AA==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record; b=qrivKKTUDO5fZ9ActBAQlHTr5dbxbvkNJb9SlMby4+5si7SNAMeaVzXnk1QmPzecI +svOOZyLcEO/vPGwZoOww==
Received: from gwj22 (gwj22.prod.google.com [10.200.10.22]) by wpaz1.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o6SJkvHV005848 for <smartpowerdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:47:25 -0700
Received: by gwj22 with SMTP id 22so1494713gwj.24 for <smartpowerdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.68.9 with SMTP id q9mr13576854yba.208.1280346445050; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.179.20 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <471C45A4-81C9-4C7C-A6F3-9A0C8DF56E50@cs.columbia.edu>
References: <4C5077D7.8010205@piuha.net> <471C45A4-81C9-4C7C-A6F3-9A0C8DF56E50@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:47:24 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTikOk_6+d9QupUot=UzGDzaaoh=pCrk0xQTvhdpD@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>
To: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, IETF SmartPower Directorate <smartpowerdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [smartpowerdir] question on identification of sensors
X-BeenThere: smartpowerdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Members of the Smart Power Directorate <smartpowerdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartpowerdir>, <mailto:smartpowerdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/smartpowerdir>
List-Post: <mailto:smartpowerdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:smartpowerdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartpowerdir>, <mailto:smartpowerdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:47:12 -0000

i think the answer is "yes" we need identities that are stable and not
bound to location.

v


On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Henning Schulzrinne
<hgs@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
> Generalized, how about UUIDs?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universally_Unique_Identifier
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kindel-uuid-uri-00
>
> On Jul 28, 2010, at 2:32 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>
>> I have a practical question for the directorate. The question relates to what I'm doing as a hobbyist in my own sensor networking, but I think its also a wider question that would have importance for others.
>>
>> My sensors have identities. They may or may not have (stable) network layer addresses or DNS names. In some cases a sensor might get different addresses at different times (movement), not exist as an IP host but as a legacy device behind a gateway, or a single IP host might be able to make a number of measurements (temperature, location, humidity). Information from the sensors gets processed in various ways, including filtering by servers, archival storage, application layer routing for the interested consumers, etc. In my mind, all of these factors speak in favor of identifying sensors or "things" in application layer data. As part of some XML structure sent somewhere, in a log file, and so on.
>>
>> My question relates to whether we need ways to represent "thing" identities in URNs. To make the question more concrete, I'm running a bunch of sensors that have either 64-bit 1-wire hardware identifiers or Ethernet MAC addresses. I would like to have an identifier format that I can stick to different places with a consistent syntax. However, there is no way to represent MAC addresses or other hardware in URNs at the moment, AFAIK. The question is, would adding such identifiers in the URN space make sense from an architectural perspective? If I google for some old discussions around supporting MAC addresses in URNs I find flame wars. So as an IP guy I plead some assistance from the group, hoping that you have more understanding of the application layer constructors and appropriate designs there.
>>
>> Jari
>>
>>
>
>