| Re: [m2m-iwg] COAP |
|
There always seems to be huge problems in creating “frankenstandards” that are a blend of a variety of existing standards. Those efforts have to deal with
overlap and inconsistencies, as well as legacy implications, and almost always end up as a non-interoperable compromise with the standards they derived from. If you can use an existing standard “as is”, that’s a different story. However, I think it is a
whole lot more important to start with the use cases (past, present, and future) and then see what existing approaches can be applied vs new ones created. From: m2m-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:m2m-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Julien Vermillard Yes ! it's applicable, it's a kind of light HTTP over UDP, it's used by (the yet to come) Open Mobile Alliance lightweight M2M and probably by the future One M2M standard. On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Ian Skerrett <ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Does anyone have experience with Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP). It certainly looks applicable in our space. http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-coap/
|