Re: [paws] XML schema versus JSON, vCard & iCal

[Benjamin A. Rolfe]

Thanks Vincent, that's what i didn't know (well one thing from a vast set of things I don't know, but the one thing most relevant tot his thread :-). Thanks Brian, that's what I was looking for.  We're seeing scaled down IP stacks fitting compactly into embedded devices such as sensors more commonly, but it is certainly not assured.  When I say "scaled down", essentially you figure out what the application needs and leave all the rest of the protocol out. That works for devices that won't change what the application layer needs from the protocol. I think some M2M applications could use this model, with a scaled down IP stack supporting PAWS.  This is the case that is interesting on this list I would expect. Some M2M applications will not support IP to the endopoints, so an intermediate will get involved.  Not much concern to the purpose of this list, but explains somewhat my unique perspective. hope that helps. Ben (as a unique individual ;0). 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 <pe...@spectrumbridge.com> 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" <brian.ro...@neustar.biz> 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:pe...@spectrumbridge.com] >Sent:  Saturday, August 11, 2012 07:13 AM Eastern Standard Time >To:    Teco Boot; Benjamin A.Rolfe >Cc:    paws@ietf.org >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" <t...@inf-net.nl> 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 >>>> paws@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> paws mailing list >>> paws@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws >> >>_______________________________________________ >>paws mailing list >>paws@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws > >_______________________________________________ >paws mailing list >paws@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws _______________________________________________ paws mailing list paws@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws -- -vince

_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
paws@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws