I'm concerned that these ranges are too similar, and the distinction
would be short-lived.
I expect devices to persistently operate differently when their
parameters are at least 2 order of magnitudes different.
The numbers below are so close that they will change and thus likely
overlap over timescales that are too short, IMO, for the IETF to be
concerned.
(i.e., there was a time when the difference between 4KB and 8KB was
important; now it's irrelevant)
Joe
On 1/24/2012 8:25 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Hey guys,
after sending the workshop announcements to a few working groups I was
asked what I mean by "constrained" device.
I responded with a pointer to the classification Carsten proposed in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-lwig-guidance-00:
+---------+-----------------------+-------------------------+
| Name | data size (e.g., RAM) | code size (e.g., Flash) |
+---------+-----------------------+-------------------------+
| Class 1 | ~ 10 KiB | ~ 100 KiB |
| | | |
| Class 2 | ~ 50 KiB | ~ 250 KiB |
+---------+-----------------------+-------------------------+
During the IAB technical plenary at the last IETF meeting Jari claimed
that we need to have a Class 0 here as well to cover his sensor deployment.
Any thoughts about this classification?
Ciao
Hannes
_______________________________________________
Lwip mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
_______________________________________________
Lwip mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
