json is okay with me. I'd prefer an ISO time stamp rather than a time in seconds since epoch. It's very easy to parse, and its simpler to use and debug. Don't care a whole lot about that
Brian <as individual> -----Original Message----- From: Vincent Chen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 06:04 PM Eastern Standard Time To: Peter Stanforth Cc: Rosen, Brian; Teco Boot; Benjamin A.Rolfe; [email protected] Subject: Re: [paws] XML schema versus JSON, vCard & iCal XML vs JSON Between XML and JSON, JSON messages are more compact and easier to process (parsing, synthesis). As clarification, JSON does not require JavaScript or a Browser. It is a text-based representation of data that is language independent, yet well-matched to all major languages. JSON-handling libraries exist for numerous languages (see of http://json.org) and seem to be reasonably light weight. Timestamps As for timestamp specifications, should we consider just using seconds since the UNIX Epoch (1970-01-01T00:00:00Z)? This would eliminate the need for datetime-string parsing on devices, assuming devices already have native libraries that provide time in this format. Is that a valid assumption? Of course, this is less human-readable.... On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 6:49 AM, Peter Stanforth <[email protected]> wrote: Whenever we built mobile devices we never dealt with IETF, in our sensor days even an IP stack was a challenge,so I would defer to the device guys on that one. On MonAug/13/12 Mon Aug 13, 9:30 AM, "Rosen, Brian" <[email protected]> wrote: >Our experience in the IETF over many years is that economizing message >size and compromising utility and security in search of efficiency of >implementation on small devices is a poor trade off. I am not advocating >being wasteful of resources, but I don't think we should seriously >consider the overhead of XML or json to be significant. > >Assuming a json library can be loaded on a small device is reasonable. > >Brian (as individual) > > > > -----Original Message----- >From: Peter Stanforth [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 07:13 AM Eastern Standard Time >To: Teco Boot; Benjamin A.Rolfe >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [paws] XML schema versus JSON, vCard & iCal > >Not all masters run over the core network. >Some of the Use cases have a master talking to another OTA >We should not assume that all Masters are attached to utility power so we >should be sympathetic to processing energy use also. > >On SatAug/11/12 Sat Aug 11, 5:30 AM, "Teco Boot" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>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 > >_______________________________________________ >paws mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws -- -vince _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
