Op 10 aug. 2012, om 18:10 heeft Benjamin A. Rolfe het volgende geschreven:
> Compactness of messages is important, but it is also important (to me at > least) to be realizable in an implementation with limited resources, such as > embedded devices in what are now popularly called "M2M" applications. A lot > of these devices could use IP all the end to end, but may have a very > compact, simple stack and applications (i.e. no browser). Is JSON typically > implemented when there is no browser? Would it be hard to do in a resource > constrained device (i.e. where we talk about memory size in Kilo-bytes still). In use cases and requirements document, there are no requirements for protocol performance. I guess OS/IP/TCP/TLS code size supersedes needs for JSON or XML. Same for timing: TCP/TLS connection setup will take more than the PAWS message exchange, I think. This may be of importance when using satcom links. Because PAWS runs between master and database, over core network, performance is not our primary concern. But as always, it is good to keep an eye on efficiency. Teco > Thanks > Ben > > >> We had a discussion on XML vs. JSON. I prefer the one with most compact >> messages. >> >> On vCard and JSON: what is the status of "A JavaScript Object Notation >> (JSON) Representation for vCard"? >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bhat-vcarddav-json-00 >> >> On valid times: can we use same format as certificates? They have similar >> simple requirements: valid notBefore& notAfter. >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3280#section-4.1.2.5 >> >> Teco >> _______________________________________________ >> paws mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws >> > > _______________________________________________ > paws mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
