[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [smartgrid-interest] Draft Charter - Energy Market InformationExchange
There is another Technical Committee underway that might shed a
useful perspective on this. I have described the WS-DD, WS-DP, and SOAP over
UDP TC here before. This committee has Microsoft, Red Hat, Novell, IBM support
to “Enabling secure Web service messaging, discovery, description, and
eventing on resource-constrained endpoints”. I have focused on WS
standards for Device Discovery (DD) and Device Profiles (DP). I have expressed
intrigue at Schneider Electric’s participation in the committee and
at their assertion that they will “have profiles on all [their]
switchgear”. With this conversation, and Bill’s observation of $1
chipsets for WS-capable chipsets for NICs, it is a good time to look at the
“SOAP over UDP” part. From a pre-existing document: “Many application
protocol patterns match the semantics of the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC
768]. Some do not require the delivery guarantees of TCP while others make use
of multicast transmission. In order to allow Web services to support these patterns,
we need a way to map SOAP envelopes to user datagrams. This support is
essential for services using WS-Discovery, where the use of multicast and need
for low connection overhead makes UDP a natural choice. It is anticipated that
other protocols will have similar requirements. This specification defines a
binding of SOAP to user datagrams, including message patterns, addressing
requirements, and security considerations” I agree that there is a need for still lighter formats, but this
standard should be part of the mix. http://xml.coverpages.org/OASIS-WS-DD-Announce2008.html http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=ws-dd
"A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in
the wrong, which is but saying ... that he is wiser today than yesterday."
-- Jonathan Swift
From: Michel Kohanim
[mailto:michel@universal-devices.com] Hi Bill, thank you. It does make sense but I was specifically
talking about GPRS and 6LoWPAN systems. GPRS would become too expensive for XML
and 6LoWPAN might not [yet] have capabilities to process pure SOAP messages. Ed, I agree with your statements. Although the document talks
about XML Vocabularies (which is OK), there is no specific mention of the
message formats/encondings. I think we should either make it clear that
everything is XML – and as Bill suggests – and specific systems are
in charge of serialization/compression/binary translation OR we should allow
for other encodings possibly something close to what Brian suggested (thanks
Toby). With kind regards, ******************************** Michel
Kohanim, C.E.O Universal
Devices, Inc. (p)
818.631.0333 (f)
818.708.0755 http://www.universal-devices.com ******************************** From: William Cox
[mailto:wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com] Michel -- Hi Bill, This is an excellent start and one which I truly believe in. One comment though: this document assumes that all transactions
will be done using XML/SOAP/Web Services (I understand the connection to
OASIS). In this respect, we are already assuming that each actor has enough
bandwidth to support such transactions, right? What are the provisions for
bandwidth constrained actors? Again, this is an excellent start and thanks for putting the
document together. With kind regards, ******************************** Michel
Kohanim, C.E.O Universal
Devices, Inc. (p)
818.631.0333 (f)
818.708.0755 http://www.universal-devices.com ******************************** From: William Cox [mailto:wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com]
I've attached a draft charter for the proposed OASIS Energy
Market Information Exchange (eMIX) Technical Committee. -- |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]