Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > I wonder whether it is time to revise RFC 7228 (or to update it). I am > particularly interested to adjust the description of the constrained > device classes since we (after some years of work) now know so much more > about the software requirements.
I'm not sure what exactly you want to revise here. There is a statement that we expect Class 1 to be a useful citizen on the Internet. Do we need to revise this? > What is missing IMHO from the classes is a description of what we expect > these devices to run. I think we need to get the expectation set correctly. That would be interesting work, but it might exacerbate the comment we got repeatedly on RFC 7228: The information in there has a shelf life. By keeping out of some subjects, we have managed to keep the time until that will happen reasonably long for the original 7228. Trying to write up our expectations of what an IoT device should be running is going to cause changes much more rapidly. Apart from those observations, revisiting 7228 based on new information we might now have is a very good idea. Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
