Thanks Daniel and Hendrik, Since it has been a some time when we discussed about this draft, here is a summary of discussions that we had on this draft regarding the adoption:
Brockhaus, Hendrik: >Thanks to Mohit for his request on rechartering and adoption. I support this. Panos Kampanakis: > I oppose adoption unless there is a compelling reason why. Also I am not sure > where this draft would be implemented and used. If this is just for one or > two vendors I don’t think ACE needs to spend the cycles. Brockhaus, Hendrik: >I think we have to accept that there are different protocols with different >abilities chosen in different verticals. Michael Richardson: > I have no fundamental objection to this work, and I think that it should be > adopted. >But, I think that it is worth doing more than just s/http/coap/. Plus some suggestions on the draft. Mohit Sahni: > Some of your suggestions should be discussed in the context of the > LightWeight CMP profile draft > I will work on making it more clear what are the pros and cons of using a > proxy vs direct communication > I will add the endpoint definitions and make resource discovery more clear in > the draft. > This draft only defines how to use the CoAP transport for carrying the CMP > messages. When and what CMP messages are sent should come under the CMP > protocol implementation itself Olaf Bergmann: > One thing that might get in our way when doing this in ACE is the emerging > input for draft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile. But otherwise, I do not > see a strong reason for not adopting draft-msahni-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport. Brockhaus, Hendrik: > Actually this was first discussed in LAMPS, but as the draft focusses on CoAP > transport and not on CMP specifics, the group had the opinion that ACE is the > better home as here is the knowledge regarding CoAP. Thanks Mohit On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 12:14 PM Brockhaus, Hendrik <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Daniel > > > > Thanks for kicking the ball. > > I would appreciate the adoption of Mohits draft and I am also willing to > review it. > > > > There are also implementation demonstrating CMP message transport on CoAP > next to HTTP. > > https://github.com/siemens/embeddedCMP > > https://github.com/siemens/LightweightCmpRa > > Any feedback is welcome! > > > > Hendrik > > > > Von: Ace <[email protected]> Im Auftrag von Daniel Migault > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. Januar 2021 20:28 > An: Ace Wg <[email protected]> > Betreff: [Ace] Call for adoption draft-msahni-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport > > > > Hi, > > > > The charter approval by the IESG has been a bit delayed and is expected to be > approved in the coming weeks. In the meanwhile, this email starts a call for > adoption on work that has been included in the charter. Of course, adoption > is contingent on the rechartering succeeding. > > > > The document called for adoption is draft-msahni-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport > available here: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-msahni-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport-01 > > > > Please state your opinion on whether this work should not or should be > adopted by the WG and express your motivation for such a statement. The call > for adoption closes on January 21. > > > > Yours, > > Daniel > > > > > > > -- > > Daniel Migault > > Ericsson _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
