Hi everyone
I am working on Digi International based radio module in my PhD(ZigBee and
EM250 from Slicon labs). The focused area is patient monitoring systems.
For health-care systems, we have following data transmission requirements
from sensors node within 250 ms delay.
*Physiological
Muhammad Sajjad Akbar.
>
> Thanks for your comments and interest.
>
> Regarding your question, I agree your point. Some link layer technologies
> are missing the adjustment with IoT services but the direct modification or
> enhancement of of them is not the scope of 6lo
Hi
The drafts looks very interesting, I still have a confusion that its really
hard to define a expiration time in such environment specially in context
of IoTs, moreover, how forwarding nodes can give priority to some packet in
a scalable similar network, where every node have same expiration
e majority of mentioned
link layer technologies still lacking the adjustment with IoTs because of
IoTs demand for intelligent forwarding mechanism at link layer. Or in the
draft the scope of the IoTs is limited to local environment?
Regards
Muhammad Sajjad Akbar
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:20 AM, <
Hello authors,
The draft is much more clear than its initial version. Good work. I would
suggest you to clear the discussion about fragmentation. In the current
version its little confusing, for example you can clearly describe either
itstransport layer or MAC layer fragmentation. Even if you are
Dear fellows,
We have incorporated the comments received in the IETF meeting Singapore,
specifically on security. We will really appreciate your comments on this
draft
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sajjad-6lo-wban/
We are going to upload another revision of the draft before IETF 103, so
Hello guys,
No doubt they have done great job. Thanks and best wishes.
Sajjad
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 23:51, Yong-Geun Hong wrote:
> Many thanks Gabriel and Samita.
>
> Your sincere chairing and leadership have made the 6lo working group as a
> successful working group.
>
> Best regards.
>
>
