Re: [Anima-bootstrap] IoT and scope of bootstrap

[peter van der Stok <[e-mail]>]

Hi Michael,

Your text proposal does not help me much.

> +      <section title="Scope of solution">
> +        <t>
> +          Questions have been posed as to whether this solution is 
> suitable
> +          in general for Internet of Things (IoT) networks.  In 
> general the
> +          answer is no, but the terminology of <xref target="RFC7228" 
> /> is
> +          best used to describe the boundaries.
> +        </t>

The above text is much more restrictive than the text below.

> +        <t>
> +          Specifically, there are protocol aspects described here 
> which
> might
> +          result in congestion collapse or energy-exhaustion of 
> intermediate
> +          battery powered routers in an LLN.  Those types of networks 
> SHOULD
> +          NOT use this solution.
> +        </t>
> +      </section>

I think the text about battery-powered or energy harvesting devices is 
the more appropriate.

What about text that formulates unwanted side effects coming from energy 
exhausted ("dead") nodes?
I don't think the dying of a node is allowed to jeopardize the 
functioning for other nodes or cause congestion, as your text suggests.

Some effort on getting this right is worthwhile, because I think the use 
of the anima Bootstrap may be interesting for the installation of large 
control networks, where
the verification of the correct functioning of the network as such is 
clearly separated from the correct functioning of the (control-) 
application on top.

Peter