IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [T2TRG] Splot/SMCP vs LwM2M

Robert Quattlebaum <rquattle@google.com> Mon, 04 March 2019 18:07 UTC

Return-Path: <rquattle@google.com>
X-Original-To: t2trg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: t2trg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6E38131118 for <t2trg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 10:07:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 52FujgeYyOj9 for <t2trg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 10:07:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52c.google.com (mail-pg1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2DDD1310C2 for <T2TRG@irtf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 10:07:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id r124so3629743pgr.3 for <T2TRG@irtf.org>; Mon, 04 Mar 2019 10:07:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=m3MuLgR8pv8cHfKeVeLI7aQj9Qko4cDwLdH2wtBtPsk=; b=nx4VLIW6Cv3KXI0bfyzo/kklf5BBuoM2jbnV+EtbkYj24VCsM5cA6fyfe0Z+8V/R8C COUHuBqAbW2ocJzIVgcu90j5wfRiy71ZsUlk1WeTew+IcggAZOujbX7/BmtJNfyIjY6F e9WE5YMs7dM2UrfomoiRr2U0k/07FTfixr+r+BuxdJT69cZ2P2p2mOAhDMeUxO/8ca4h kmGZGwwmZJBcG2oLvhd0dGPnfaIcFBnEHUdxdFdpDZzZsiBhEkNZj4ADKv/yki9XaVh7 XD3xsxrnIrY/GZ/f0mcneJ5bvqopJ0Odl3beuUHwYiPX+vn7VPrZ4Dj20F+RIzh2W28/ FFrQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=m3MuLgR8pv8cHfKeVeLI7aQj9Qko4cDwLdH2wtBtPsk=; b=XhLDU3WYgsbB1w+5wkfxgxbENXWr9v1X5eaNd1QE23iVcZhYVxWSB9ooRVYIpG2B1l GMnU7lQcorZELjFSVM+623mOwPfNVDx6UkW/Nnt1Vzc4b8MLeNX34cFY9nV0Iuw3wFWT 5p3y2fxZXH0sseWNXdJ1V//MVRot8ci2FsiyYY77MdRljHpEpYXLx8kEGU8wfUpG40AN Le+3q4e9Ir9KGtMRLKApUOOnqCnRT2aB5jjtCZOJD9fCj7UUS9WwJ//dBP8bfgXE1YlF VdK1O/iVwTH1T8LiMpq8ssvml/bPy0gXmydf5/RVnzy6RFyYMqUbzKoKQhaWX1q8dqx9 EyEQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZ1OjRUoPthrUWWQbEOQENS/p/A0WCcv7bgm0T9r1k2jBL0QfmD YF2z/vsNlwb63ffMexzwPz2X5g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwcWvqt+F+6syZgBqilkamsr2eLYbOpUKYIwYCukuyogDdtSVoJYgvPCff1fgXu/s8a1ivVaw==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:2ad1:: with SMTP id q200mr20837423pfq.34.1551722820995; Mon, 04 Mar 2019 10:07:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2620:15c:279:700:28b8:3ae4:992a:e43a? ([2620:15c:279:700:28b8:3ae4:992a:e43a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o6sm19030166pgo.27.2019.03.04.10.06.59 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Mar 2019 10:06:59 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F8CC74BB-77EE-4D5D-967C-BA6E7BE89A35"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Robert Quattlebaum <rquattle@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR0801MB2112B428AF238E831242042FFA7B0@VI1PR0801MB2112.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 10:06:58 -0800
Cc: "T2TRG@irtf.org" <T2TRG@irtf.org>
Message-Id: <CB30F204-9CF3-4BB8-96C3-9A887ADD5649@google.com>
References: <BBCA0B43-1D8F-460E-B0C3-77C1FCEC04DA@google.com> <VI1PR0801MB2112B428AF238E831242042FFA7B0@VI1PR0801MB2112.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/t2trg/hz2HgMjiV_g3mML_55qb1a0tbL0>
Subject: Re: [T2TRG] Splot/SMCP vs LwM2M
X-BeenThere: t2trg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Thing-to-Thing Research Group <t2trg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/t2trg>, <mailto:t2trg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/t2trg/>
List-Post: <mailto:t2trg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:t2trg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/t2trg>, <mailto:t2trg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 18:07:08 -0000

My intent is to help people understand how the SOM and SMCP work by comparing it to LwM2M, but unfortunately I feel that I don't quite yet fully "grok" LwM2M. That makes it difficult to write up a fair comparison.

For example, based on my understanding, LwM2M seems to focus on devices checking in with and being managed by a central management resource, whereas SMCP allows for a more decentralized, ad-hoc structure. SMCP devices can be centrally managed, but emphasis has been put on the ability to configure relationships between devices that don't rely on a third party. But it's unclear to me if I'm properly understanding LwM2M in making that comparison.

I believe I was looking at the LwM2M v1.1 specs while writing up the linked wiki page.

-RQ

> On Feb 26, 2019, at 2:32 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Robert, 
>  
> What are you actually comparing here? Are you interested in comparing the data models, the underlying protocols, the security mechanisms, deployment status, support for specific use cases, …. ?
> What version of LwM2M are you looking at?
>  
> Ciao
> Hannes
>  
>  
> From: T2TRG <t2trg-bounces@irtf.org <mailto:t2trg-bounces@irtf.org>> On Behalf Of Robert Quattlebaum
> Sent: Freitag, 22. Februar 2019 21:48
> To: T2TRG@irtf.org <mailto:T2TRG@irtf.org>
> Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org <mailto:cabo@tzi.org>>
> Subject: [T2TRG] Splot/SMCP vs LwM2M
>  
> Hello everyone,
>  
> Sorry it's so late, but here is the document I put together outlining some of the differences between LwM2M and Splot/SMCP:
>  
>                 https://github.com/google/splot-java/wiki/SMCP-vs-LwM2M <https://github.com/google/splot-java/wiki/SMCP-vs-LwM2M>
>  
> I'd love to hear feedback, especially those more familiar with LwM2M so that I can make sure I am characterizing LwM2M correctly.
>  
> -- RQ
>  
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email