- From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 12:08:06 +0100
- To: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
- CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 07/23/2012 09:25 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Other fun machine to machine http use cases (forgot to mention it before): > environment monitoring station deployed out of the grid (energy grid or > communication grid), that shuts down most of the year, wakes up at > specified intervals to collect data and send it via radio or satellite to > the mothership. Processing is limited to the energy solar cells can > collect in the meanwhile (even in the mid of winter with little sun plus > snow obstruction). Maintenance or battery change can only be done via > helicopter (when the weather permits) or after a few days of trecking > (because where there is no grid, there are no roads). So you'd better be > as parsimonious as possible with your energy uses. We've done those, e.g. [1,2]. > For this particular use case the latency and processing induced by setting > up a crypto tunnel is a killer, Disagree. Attempting HTTP e2e would be a killer, as would anything needing e2e TCP. Nothing to do with crypto. We use RFC5050 for that kind of environment. S. [1] http://down.dsg.cs.tcd.ie/s10inf/ [2] http://down.dsg.cs.tcd.ie/s11inf/
Received on Monday, 23 July 2012 11:08:37 UTC