Hi Carles,
> On 21 Jun 2016, at 10:38, Carles Gomez Montenegro
> wrote:
>
> Hi Ari,
>
> Thank you very much for your feedback, and sorry for the late response.
> Please find below a few inline comments:
>
>>> By the way, currently the phrasing in the draft is that a window size of
>>> one 'MU
(moving discussion to LWIG list)
> On 13 Jun 2016, at 12:57, Carles Gomez Montenegro
> wrote:
>
>> Some quick comments for your draft.
>>
>>> 3.2. Window Size
>>
>>> A TCP window size of one segment follows the same rationale as the
>>> default setting for NSTART in [RFC7252], leading to equi
FYI; this update addresses all the IESG review comments.
Cheers,
Ari
On 04/01/16 13:16, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Light-Weight Implementation Guidance Working
Group of the
On 19/03/14 06:05, Cao Zhen (CZ) wrote:
[...]
In general I think this is good stuff and looking forward to seeing
more especially on how to take L2 & L1 features into account at L3
and above. Are there some standard APIs or such available BTW?
Sadly, not yet standard, and the chipset do provide
Hi,
Here's some comments on draft-hex-lwig-energy-efficient-02.
In general I think this is good stuff and looking forward to seeing more
especially on how to take L2 & L1 features into account at L3 and above. Are
there some standard APIs or such available BTW?
More specific comments on the t
Dear Yuanchen,
Thanks for the review! See comments inline.
On Mar 2, 2014, at 9:34 PM, ma yc wrote:
> I just roughly went through the draft. It is an interesting draft. I think it
> is a good
> approach to summarize the cellular and power efficiency for CoAP
> implementation.
> Following are
Folks,
This update aligns the CoAP cellular draft with the updated terminology
of the latest terminology draft and has a few other editorial fixes.
The authors think the draft is ready to move forward but would
appreciate a review or two before going for last calls.
Thanks,
Ari
On 13/02/1
Hi,
Here's couple of comments on the terminology draft.
2.1. Constrained Nodes
Should this perhaps include also processing (CPU) power? This has impact
e.g., on the level of security you can (reasonably) achieve.
2.2. Constrained Networks
Should this mention low (radio) range too?
3.
