Hi Carles,
I will give some comments as we have been doing both CoAP over Websocket and
CoAP over TCP by extending Califorium.
I agree Carsten that CoAP over TCP will be used in the cloud and may also be
in less-constrained networks.
It is hard to say that CoAP over TCP will be used in Constrained Networks.
Rgards,
Gengyu WEI
Network Technology Center
School of Computer
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications
-----原始邮件-----
From: Carles Gomez Montenegro
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 11:10 PM
To: Carsten Bormann
Cc: [email protected] ; [email protected] Extensions ; [email protected] ;
[email protected] WG
Subject: Re: [core] [tcpm] [Lwip] [Fwd: New Version Notification for
draft-gomez-core-tcp-constrained-node-networks-00.txt]
Hi Carsten,
Thanks a lot for your comments.
While we work to address those, it would be really helpful if folks that
have faced 'bad constrained TCP implementations', and/or have struggled
with middlebox traversal can share their experience.
Cheers,
Carles
Carles,
thanks for submitting this.
I think that this draft is truly best handled in LWIG.
We don't *have* to profile TCP for CoAP-over-TCP; people are free to use
whatever parts of TCP they think are useful. (And, of course, there are
applications for CoAP-over-TCP that are in the backend.)
On the other hand, it is useful to
-- manage expectations:
what can I expect that the *other* side will offer in TCP functionality
-- give advice to implementers:
what is useful to implement, what not
-- collect implementation experience that is relevant for these two
(One interesting effect I'm seeing is that people know how good TCP can
be, which shapes their expectations, but then they are hurt by using
really bad constrained TCP implementations... We certainly should be
paying attention to this on the CoRE WG side.)
My biggest comment is probably that for device-to-cloud, the level of
TCP functions implemented will be asymmetric (full TCP on cloud side,
possibly more limited on the device side) -- what is the effect of this
asymmetry?
Maybe there also needs to be more discussion on the role of the
middlebox (after all, we are doing CoAP-over-TCP to devices for the sole
reason to climb over middleboxes).
Grüße, Carsten
Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE) wrote:
Heads-up
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Lwip [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Carles Gomez
Montenegro
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 11:36 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [Lwip] [Fwd: New Version Notification for
draft-gomez-core-tcp-constrained-node-networks-00.txt]
Dear LWIG WG,
/** Apologies for possibly multiple similar e-mails... **/
We have just submitted the draft entitled 'TCP over Constrained-Node
Networks', which we believe may be of interest to the members of this
group.
We would like to kindly ask for feedback, specially on the basis of
implementation experience.
Thank you very much!
Kind regards,
The authors
---------------------------- Original Message
----------------------------
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-gomez-core-tcp-constrained-node-networks-00.txt
From: [email protected]
Date: Fri, June 10, 2016 10:38 am
To: "Jon Crowcroft" <[email protected]>
"Carles Gomez" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new version of I-D,
draft-gomez-core-tcp-constrained-node-networks-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Carles Gomez and posted to the IETF
repository.
Name: draft-gomez-core-tcp-constrained-node-networks
Revision: 00
Title: TCP over Constrained-Node Networks
Document date: 2016-06-10
Group: Individual Submission
Pages: 9
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gomez-core-tcp-constrained-node-networks-00.txt
Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gomez-core-tcp-constrained-node-networks/
Htmlized:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gomez-core-tcp-constrained-node-networks-00
Abstract:
This document provides a profile for the Transmission Control
Protocol (TCP) over Constrained-Node Networks (CNNs). The
overarching goal is to offer simple measures to allow for lightweight
TCP implementation and suitable operation in such environments.
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
tools.ietf.org.
The IETF Secretariat
_______________________________________________
Lwip mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
_______________________________________________
core mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core
_______________________________________________
Lwip mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
