Subject: Re: [Teep] Call for adoption of draft-thaler-teep-otrp-over-http

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 13:14:23 -0400

Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 10:59 AM To: Hannes Tschofenig; Dave Thaler; Anders Rundgren; Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing); [email-masked] Subject: RE: [Teep] Call for adoption of draft-thaler-teep-otrp-over-http

Based on our IoT customer base we currently know that JSON is the only one used today. That said I agree with Hannes that we should consider CBOR as well but I think we can adopt the draft as it is and maybe later add CBOR support. I am looking mainly at the industrial markets we serve many use JSON but I am looking from the storage users perspective so I cannot attest that they don’t use neither. In summary I will adopt the draft as it is. Thanks

./Sorin

From: TEEP<[email-masked]>On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 10:35 AM To: Dave Thaler; Anders Rundgren; Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing); [email-masked] Subject: Re: [Teep] Call for adoption of draft-thaler-teep-otrp-over-http

[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
• The IoT market has adopted CBOR rather than JSON.

• That’s a bit overstated, “IoT” is very broad and hence there are _many_ IoT “markets”, and many of them have not adopted CBOR. For example, if you look in industrial IoT, the dominant protocol is OPC UA, which uses neither CBOR nor JSON. In consumer IoT like in devices on shelves now, I think you will find that JSON is far more deployed than CBOR is (e.g., Hue light bulbs and many other IoT devices use JSON-over-HTTP). It is true that some of the IoT market has adopted CBOR.For example, OCF adopted CBOR, but OCF has very little actual deployment today.

I agree with Dave here. I think it is fair to say that the JWT has been implement and deployed by the Web community. Particularly in the OAuth context it is widely deployed.

CBOR has been suggested for IoT-related specifications but CBOR, COSE and CWT is definitely not widely implement and even less widely used.

The question I wonder is whether the current deployment status matters in our case and I don’t think it has any relationship to the call for adoption of draft-thaler-teep-otrp-over-http.
When the initial version of OTrP was written there was the assumption that the encoding of the protocol in JSON would be more convenient for Web developers given that the main deployment use case was for mobile phones and tablets.

Now, there is of course the question whether Web developers should be exposed to the details and the encoding of the OTrP protocol itself. I think that’s an important question. Afterall, we are trying to make the life of developers simpler with this work.

Since the formation of the TEEP group we have also added other use cases extending our original goals for OTrP. This makes me believe that it is worthwhile to look into a CBOR-based encoding as well. I also would like to take advance of ongoing working work in SUIT&RATS.

Ciao Hannes

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.