From:	owner-onem2m_mas@LIST.ONEM2M.ORG on behalf of William Lupton 
(wilupton) [wilupton@cisco.com]
Sent:	Friday, January 31, 2014 12:06 PM
To:	oneM2M_MAS@LIST.ONEM2M.ORG
Subject:	Re: [oneM2M_MAS] OMA-BBF-oneM2M Collaboration: Bulk 
synchronization requirements

Tim, all,  
1.	Does "bulk sync" have any implications for whether it's part of ms or not?
2.	Does "offline capability" mean the same as "not part of ms"?
3.	Does "not part of ms" imply "not specified by oneM2M"?

My nave answers to these questions are 1:NO, 2:YES, 3:YES.

My follow-up observation is that if such an offline capability is not part of ms and not specified by oneM2M 
then it seems that the management adapter has to have knowledge of the non-standard offline capability and 
so is itself forced to be non-standard.

Comments?

Cheers,
William

PS, I see BBF "DT Instances" as an analogy here.  The http://www.broadband-forum.org/cwmp/tr-181-2-7-
0.html#D.Device:2.Device.DeviceInfo.SupportedDataModel.{i}.URL parameter references an XML file that 
describes part of the CPE's supported data model.  So this is an offline mechanism.  But if the format of the 
referenced XML file were not specified, it would be a completely non-portable mechanism.  Luckily, "The 
referenced XML file MUST be compliant with the DT (Device Type) Schema that is described in [Annex B/TR-
106a3]" :).

From: <Mladin>, Catalina M <Catalina.Mladin@INTERDIGITAL.COM> 
Reply-To: "Mladin, Catalina M" <Catalina.Mladin@INTERDIGITAL.COM> 
Date: Thursday, 30 January 2014 17:22 
To: "oneM2M_MAS@LIST.ONEM2M.ORG" <oneM2M_MAS@LIST.ONEM2M.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [oneM2M_MAS] OMA-BBF-oneM2M Collaboration: Bulk synchronization requirements

Hi Tim, 
 
Sorry for the late response to this, frankly I was curious if anyone else would chime in.
 
My answer would be yes to both 1 and 2 below. I also think that the highlighted statement below 
 from Tim pertains to 1)  and points the  question towards the ARC group.
 
I understand that ARC is currently quite busy with features already agreed-upon for release 1, this 
certainly is not one of them. The reason I am including ARC leadership and secretariat in this email is to 
inquire of the best ways to keep track of such questions/issues without inundating the exploders or 
disturbing the focus. 
 
For example, is there (or should we create) some doc/log of open issues? The excel sheet with release 
mapping could be one, but it has only the highest-level info included, and it is not routinely updated. I 
dont mean to create an administrative/procedural upheaval with this, rather to employ some basic 
project management tools in our work for efficiency. Please note also that I am aware of the we are 
contribution driven principle, but I still think issues should not need  contributions, although of course 
solutions do.
 
Coming back to the focus of this thread, since I professed I am not trying to distract :). I agree with Tim 
in regards to the usefulness of both 1 and 2.
 
Best regards, Catalina
 
 
From: owner-onem2m_mas@list.onem2m.org [mailto:owner-onem2m_mas@list.onem2m.org] On Behalf 
Of Carey, Timothy (Timothy) 
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 7:28 AM 
To: Zhangyongjing (Yongjing); oneM2M_MAS@list.oneM2M.org 
Subject: RE: OMA-BBF-oneM2M Collaboration: Bulk synchronization requirements
 
Yongjing,
 
Yes I do think this requirement is for incremental changes for the devices (possibly millions) and 
resources (hopefully only a few hundred) attributes.
That is what caused the bulk statement.
 
It is really the same problem that a oneM2M Server would have when an AE would subscribe to 
changes in resources of many nodes.
I see in the oneM2M Functional Architecture the subscription resource handles this type of 
requirement for the M2M Service Layer notifications.
The procedure 10.2.10 Notification Procedures for Resource Subscription specifies how to batch 
notifications but does define any offline mechanism.
 
 
 
From: Zhangyongjing (Yongjing) [mailto:zhangyongjing@huawei.com]  
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 7:07 PM 
To: Carey, Timothy (Timothy); oneM2M_MAS@list.oneM2M.org 
Subject: RE: OMA-BBF-oneM2M Collaboration: Bulk synchronization requirements
 
At current stage, Im thinking if its too specific to require the synchronization in bulk. Therere many ways to 
do synchronization. If its based on offline file exchange, would the format be specified?
Besides, does the requirement also implies incremental sync since it addresses resource changes? 

From:owner-onem2m_mas@list.onem2m.org [mailto:owner-onem2m_mas@list.onem2m.org] On Behalf 
Of Carey, Timothy (Timothy) 
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:26 AM 
To: oneM2M_MAS@list.oneM2M.org 
Subject: OMA-BBF-oneM2M Collaboration: Bulk synchronization requirements
 
Team,
 
During the 1/15 adhoc call on Device Management Server  Session Management, we discussed if 
there was a need to have bulk synchronization
 
&#8226	Periodically, the M2M Service Layer may, in bulk, request to discover and express 
interest in resource changes in order to synchronize the M2M Service Layer with resources of 
interest of the DM Server. This synchronization mechanism should utilize off line file 
capabilities.
 
We decided that this requirement needed more discussion and that the email list would be 
appropriate.
 
I believe the question really was the approach to how we would synchronize many resources/devices 
between the M2M Service Layer and DM Server.  One question was if an out-of-band (off line file 
transfer capabilities) was appropriate.
 
 
Ok  well let the discussion begin 
 
1)	do we need a bulk sync mechanism?
2)	Should we require an offline capability?
 
Anything else along that line is also welcome.
 
BR,
 
Tim
