Re: [smartpowerdir] question on identification of sensors

Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu> Wed, 28 July 2010 18:47 UTC

Return-Path: <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
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 D5C053A69CE for <smartpowerdir@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:47:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.932
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.333, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 UAP7vvkFPYhH for <smartpowerdir@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tarap.cc.columbia.edu (tarap.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.29.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E6E73A693E for <smartpowerdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.11.9] (85-23-27-240-Torikatu-TR1.suomi.net [85.23.27.240]) (user=hgs10 mech=PLAIN bits=0) by tarap.cc.columbia.edu (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6SIlcCo020902 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:47:40 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4C5077D7.8010205@piuha.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:47:38 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <471C45A4-81C9-4C7C-A6F3-9A0C8DF56E50@cs.columbia.edu>
References: <4C5077D7.8010205@piuha.net>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-No-Spam-Score: Local
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 128.59.29.7
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 18:47:22 -0000

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
> 
>