Re: [Teep] Call for adoption of draft-thaler-teep-otrp-over-http

On 2019-05-28 13:45, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> Hi Anders,

Hi Hannes,

> 
> We talked about the use of CBOR for OTrP in the past and I believe it would be a useful addition to cover some IoT segments.
> However, we have so far been busy working on the architecture and therefore had not time to work on these details.

As an independent developer who [fortunately...] do not have existing deployments or GlobalPlatform compatibility to worry about, I see three alternatives:
- Status quo: Duplication like in the current EAT spec. (which from a pure engineering point of view doesn't feel overly cool).
- Moderate revision: Using CBOR as the common denominator since any system can deal with CBOR.
- Major revision: Decoupling OTrP formats from TEEP through an enhanced architecture as outlined on GitHub.

> I am not sure I understand the second part of your question.

I imagined that a common "Cloud" use-case would be *upload* of customer-written TAs using the traditional client-server/request-response model which doesn't seem to be covered by the current draft.

Note: I only want to get the options on the table and leave adoption decisions to others :-)

Cheers,
Anders
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TEEP <teep-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Anders Rundgren
> Sent: Dienstag, 28. Mai 2019 07:42
> To: Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) <ncamwing@cisco.com>; teep@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Teep] Call for adoption of draft-thaler-teep-otrp-over-http
> 
> Hi Nancy & Co,
> I have a couple of related questions.
> 
> The IoT market has adopted CBOR rather than JSON.  Is the plan to later revive something along the lines of:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-liu-opentrustprotocol-cbor-00.txt ?
> 
> OTrP over HTTP for the client-centric (constrained devices, mobile phones) world and the "Cloud" are considered identical. I don't fully understand how that is intended to work:
> https://github.com/ietf-teep/OTrP/issues/14
> Maybe I'm simply missing some vital information?
> 
> Best regards,
> Anders
> 
> On 2019-05-28 01:11, Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> At the IETF 104 TEEP session, we discussed the need to transport the OTrP messages and Dave has drafted a document to specify HTTPs as a transport.
>>
>> This begins a 2 week period to determine interest in adopting this draft as a working group item.  The poll will close on June 10th EOD PDT.
>>
>> The draft is:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thaler-teep-otrp-over-http/
>>
>> Minutes from IETF 104:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-104-rats/
>>
>> Warm regards,
>>
>>                   Nancy
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TEEP mailing list
>> TEEP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teep
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TEEP mailing list
> TEEP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teep
> 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.
> 