Hi Carsten and Co-Authors, thanks for working on the document.
What I am missing is a discussion (which does not need to end in the final version of the document) on what functionality you consider to be included in, for example, the class 1 device. I agree with Emmanuel regarding the difference between the device that run a RTOS (or special IoT-designed OS) and the devices that run a general purpose OS, like Linux. This is also a differentiation we make, as you know. Ciao Hannes PS: I am not sure about the "motes". Are you talking about BLE beacons? On 02/01/2017 10:57 AM, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote: > 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] > <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[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 > <https://github.com/lwig-wg/terminology> > and > https://lwig-wg.github.io/terminology/ > <https://lwig-wg.github.io/terminology/> > > Issues and pull requests are welcome. > (Please see > https://github.com/lwig-wg/terminology/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md > <https://github.com/lwig-wg/terminology/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.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] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip> > > > _______________________________________________ > Lwip mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lwip mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
