Hi Carsten, thanks for the initiative. I support it!
Coarsly, from the software perspective, there are 3 classes of devices: - "motes" with fixed, simplistic functionality in software, on which resources are so constrained that an operating system and (secure) software updates do not make sense. - "low-end IoT devices" with more resources and more functionalities in software, which run an OS but cannot run generic operating systems such as Linux or equivalents/derivatives, and hence run IoT-specific operating systems such as RIOT, Contiki etc. - "high-end IoT devices" which have enough resources so that they can run generic operating systems such as Linux or equivalents/derivatives. Each category presents specific challenges, but the "low-end IoT device" category is the one where the most fundamental progress is expected, and achievable. By that I mean that we can hope to transform low-end IoT devices into "standard" Internet citizens if we do things right. On that level, there is no hope for motes and, on the other hand, high-end IoT devices are already Internet citizens. >From that perspective, I'm not sure defining a "Class 7" would be useful. I'm not even sure if defining a "Class 0" is so useful either in the end -- if we have no hope that such devices will become "standard" Internet citizens. Best, Emmanuel On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:01 AM, Christian Groves <[email protected]> wrote: > I did a quick read of the draft and to me its not clear what the goal of > clause 5.2 "Class of Internet Integration" is. > > The table talks about internet technologies, the text makes reference to > communications patterns (e.g. device-to-cloud) whereas the section is on > integration. It also lists I9 which seems to suggest there will be > "degrees" on classes of integration between I1 and I9. > > So is the aim to only have 3 types? e.g. > > Device Internal IP usage - IP Interoperability not an issue. > > Device to Provider Server - IP Interoperability within a service provider. > > Device to Any - IP interoperability required between multiple service > providers. > > Or to have something more specific to IP listing what parts of the IP > suite are supported? > > Regards, Christian > > > > > On 26/01/2017 6:57 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > >> On 26 Jan 2017, at 00:38, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Sure. We started that discussion a few IETFs ago and have a bis draft >>> out at >>> draft-bormann-lwig-7228bis. >>> >> … and the editors’ draft is now at: >> >> https://github.com/lwig-wg/terminology >> and >> https://lwig-wg.github.io/terminology/ >> >> Issues and pull requests are welcome. >> (Please see https://github.com/lwig-wg/terminology/blob/master/CONTRIBUT >> ING.md ). >> >> (The proposed bis document is an individual submission at this point; we >> still put it up under the “lwig-wg” organization as there appears to be >> some interest.) >> >> Grüße, Carsten >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lwip mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip >> > > _______________________________________________ > Lwip mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip >
_______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
