Hi, Just to remind you the call for adoption ends today.
Yours, Daniel On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 6:01 PM Mohit Sahni <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- Daniel Migault Ericsson
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
