Subject: [core] Draft for Group Communication for CoAP

From: "Rahman, Akbar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:57:51 -0400

Hi Carsten,

Here is the draft on Group Communications for CoAP as per our action
from the previous CORE Webex call.  We look forward to comments from you
and the rest of the WG.

I acted as the editor for the document but got most of the technical
input from all the people who contributed to the document as listed in
the Acknowledgements section.  I especially would like to thank Kerry
Lynn who devoted a lot of time and energy in helping me put together
this draft.

Sincerely,

Akbar

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 4:45 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: I-D Action:draft-rahman-core-groupcomm-00.txt 

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

	Title           : Group Communication for CoAP
	Author(s)       : A. Rahman
	Filename        : draft-rahman-core-groupcomm-00.txt
	Pages           : 14
	Date            : 2010-10-14

This is a working document intended to trigger discussion and develop
draft language for the CoAP protocol specification in the area of group
communication (including multicast functionality).  Engineering
tradeoffs become more challenging in constrained environments, therefore
group communication is considered within the context of adjacent topics
that may impact or be impacted by design choices in the subject area.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rahman-core-groupcomm-00.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Peter Bigot <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:21:03 -0500

I'll read the draft in detail and provide comments, but at first view it
appears that this proposes to use the CoAP transaction protocol with
multicast addresses, and does not make any claims that such use conforms to
ReST transactions.

This is a reasonable approach that should satisfy anybody who doesn't insist
that CoAP must be 100% ReST.  It works for me.

It also allows the translation between ReST transactions expressed in HTTP
and those expressed in CoAP to be more that mere mechanical
transliterations, simplifying the bridging problem too.  One HTTP ReST
transaction may become an unspecified number of CoAP transactions, and the
translation can be responsible for combining resource representations into
the single response supported by HTTP.

Peter

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Rahman, Akbar <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core
>

---

From: Kerry Lynn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:01:01 -0400

Peter,

Your comments would be greatly appreciated.  Keep in mind that this is
-00 and has many gaps.  I think a worthy goal for -01 would be to sketch
out enough detail that *some* level of interop might be implemented and
tested in Beijing.  I expect this might be at the proxy level as described
in [STUDY1].

Regards, -K-

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Peter Bigot <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Rahman, Akbar
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Carsten,
>>
>>