Re: [coman] Merged terminology draft

Dear all,

Next to the classification on memory, I should like to add a 
classification on power availability. In small nodes the largest power 
consumer is the transmitter. So I propose to classify the nodes 
according to their power-supply expressed as its transmission capacity. 
I propose three types of devices:

P0: battery-less devices. They have a capacitor which is charged by 
harvesting power delivered by a small movement or light. The stored 
energy  is just sufficient to send 1 or at most 2 packets per 
communication. For example, think of a light switch where the 
transmission power is delivered by pushing the button.

P1: battery-constrained devices. They have a battery with a limited 
charge. The device can continue sending packets over years by executing 
a cycle of relatively long off periods and short on periods in which a 
few packets can be sent and received. For example, think of a 
battery-powered temperature sensor with a life-time of 7-10 years.

P2: battery-unconstrained devices. They may have a battery which is 
usually rechargeable. The device can send and receive packets at any 
moment during its operational life. For example, think of a thermostat 
connected to an external power supply.

Hope this is helpful.

Peter van der Stok

Carsten Bormann schreef op 2012-11-08 20:43:
> As discussed in LWIG and COMAN today, Mehmet and I have extracted our
> common, "essential" terminology out of the LWIG WG document and
> Mehmet's COMAN draft, and merged it into one document.
>
> The intention is to move this forward within LWIG independently, in 
> an
> expedited way, and reference it from the next version of
> draft-ietf-lwig-guidance as well as further COMAN documents.
>
> Since we got positive feedback in the LWIG meeting for this little
> piece of surgery, I'm now asking the LWIG chairs to ask the question
> on the mailing list for working group adoption of this draft.
>
> Htmlized:        
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-lwig-terms-00
>
> Clearly, this isn't perfect yet, but further improving the document 
> is
> the point of the WG process.
> Of course, comments that could lead to improvement are highly 
> welcome.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
> _______________________________________________
> coman mailing list
> coman@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/coman