Re: [6lowapp] Next rev of CoRE Charter

[Robert Cragie <[e-mail]>]

+1. The taxonomy of terms is not entirely clear nor defined so trying to 
classify at this stage is difficult. If you are going to pick a general 
term, I think constrained nodes/network works well, as I see LLN as a 
specialisation of a constrained nodes/network.

Robert

Robert Cragie (Pacific Gas & Electric)

Gridmerge Ltd.
89 Greenfield Crescent,
Wakefield, WF4 4WA, UK
[phone]
http://www.gridmerge.com <http://www.gridmerge.com/>



Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> 1) I would suggest to first try to adopt a common "language" across Working
>> Groups. In ROLL, we use the term LLN to refer to Low power and Lossy Networks.
>> Using similar terminology could help.
>>     
>
> While LLN are one class of a constrained network, I believe the focus of CoRE should be a bit wider and narrower at the same time.  E.g., there may be little reason not to run CoAP on simple nodes connected by RS-485-style networks, even if we don't have a single standard way to map IP onto them right now.  On the other hand, some nodes on an LLN way be able to run HTTP with good results.
>
> In other words:  I'm all for harmonization of terms, except where that muddies the waters.  Let's keep the three terms 6LoWPAN (a specific LLN where we do expect to have some highly constrained nodes), LLN, and constrained nodes/networks separate for now.  Yes, they all fit together in the region where they overlap, but, no, they aren't the same.
>
> Gruesse, Carsten
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowapp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp
>
>