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

[Dave Thaler <[e-mail]>]

Inline below.



-----Original Message-----
From: TEEP <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Anders Rundgren
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 10:42 PM
To: Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
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.



That’s a bit overstated, “IoT” is very broad and hence there are _many_ IoT “markets”, and many of them have not adopted CBOR.

For example, if you look in industrial IoT, the dominant protocol is OPC UA, which uses neither CBOR nor JSON.
In consumer IoT like in devices on shelves now, I think you will find that JSON is far more deployed than CBOR is (e.g., Hue light bulbs and many other IoT devices use JSON-over-HTTP).

It is true that some of the IoT market has adopted CBOR.  For example, OCF adopted CBOR, but OCF has very little actual deployment today.



Is the plan to later revive something along the lines of: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-liu-opentrustprotocol-cbor-00.txt ?



That is still possible, yes.   It’s orthogonal to the question of the transport though which is the subject of this thread.



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?



Issue 14 still requires discussion from the WG.  I do not have a strong opinion on the matter, but if there are multiple implementations that would want to deploy and interop in the way you suggest, then the WG should definitely look at it.   I’m waiting to hear whether there’s interest from the rest of the WG.   In my view, this shouldn’t hold up adoption of the draft, but would be an important conversation to close on before it’s done.



Dave (as transport spec editor)



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://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-thaler-teep-otrp-over-http%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7Ca645898291624863026c08d6e32f38d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636946189285648486&amp;sdata=r0oaeFJbI0xWwA4T%2Fr8W9ha0Xw23mpY9VC%2BNYBRZqMc%3D&amp;reserved=0

>

> Minutes from IETF 104:

>

> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fminutes-104-rats%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7Ca645898291624863026c08d6e32f38d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636946189285648486&amp;sdata=YTvPq7M725hzurUxNA0XLrwUCVf1jhR08d2ozGBvDbo%3D&amp;reserved=0

>

> Warm regards,

>

>                  Nancy

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> TEEP mailing list

> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fteep&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7Ca645898291624863026c08d6e32f38d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636946189285648486&amp;sdata=kHfSSP9YBRHgUO15QvMKGRGcD5mXt0ol73hMfvtnyU4%3D&amp;reserved=0

>



_______________________________________________

TEEP mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fteep&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7Ca645898291624863026c08d6e32f38d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636946189285648486&amp;sdata=kHfSSP9YBRHgUO15QvMKGRGcD5mXt0ol73hMfvtnyU4%3D&amp;reserved=0