Subject: [Ace] Your Charter Scoping Feedback

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:44:30 +0100

Hi all,

thanks for the feedback on the charter scoping discussion.
I just read through the various remarks sent to the list.

Looking at the diagram again I believe I hear the following feedback.

                                          +---------------+
                                          | Authorization |
             +--------------------------->|  Server       |
             |        (I)                 +---------------+
             |                                  ^
             |                                  |
             |                                  |
             |                                  | III
             |                                  |
             |                                  |
             |                                  |
             v                                  v
        +-----------+                     +-----+-----+
        |           |      II             | Resource  |
        |   Client  | <..................>| Server    |
        +-----------+                     +-----------+

For II we would start our work on a solution that re-uses CoAP and DTLS
since the client and the resource server are likely going to be
constrained. We would, however, add text to the charter that the outcome
of that work has to also work for a not-so-much constrained environment
that uses HTTP/TLS on interface II.

Various people raised the question of proxies and, in further
discussions, it appears to me that those proxies are used for protocol
translation to interface existing deployment. Following the suggestion
Michael provided I think we should also put text in the charter that we
will look into the proxying case once we have an initial solution
approach selected to determine how the interworking would be
accomplished. It is a bit premature to answer that question at this
point in time. Michael even went one step further and suggested running
code and that indeed sounds like an interesting idea.

Concerning interfaces I and III I got a mixed reaction. I believe that
this is partially caused by the nature of different solutions you all
have in mind. For some solutions there is no interface III, for example.
In other cases there is no interface I. My suggestion is to avoid
mandating a specific approach in the charter right now and rather wait
for a solution preference to emerge in the group.

How does this sound? Is this a reasonable compromise?

In my subsequent mail I will make a proposal for the updated charter text.

Ciao
Hannes