Hannes Tschofenig <[email protected]> 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 also think we should re-open the document.
I find that an increasing number of devices are >C1, and not really C2.
And an increasing number of devices >C2, but still constrained in many ways.
(For instance: home routers which are relatively rich on code space compared
to C2, but have no real time clock, user interface, and while they can move
packets thanks to hardware assist, have no CPU left ...)
(Or most any smartphone: piles and piles of CPU and storage, and user
interface, but battery constraints mean they never want to do TCP or TLS keep
alives... Not really constrained, but clearly not in the same class as a
desktop)
> 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.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
