IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [core] RSSI in SenML

Eric Ptak <eptak@mydevices.com> Wed, 22 March 2017 20:30 UTC

Return-Path: <eptak@mydevices.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E6AC128BB6 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 13:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mydevices.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7UHvKFwiuiOU for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 13:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x232.google.com (mail-qt0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B9A3128B38 for <core@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 13:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x232.google.com with SMTP id i34so161145027qtc.0 for <core@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 13:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mydevices.com; s=mydevices; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=wUYwleTXVq1sYleKtcoil27U4aQFrjAAuWUeqpTnlWQ=; b=VpPPYMGtMnLctFFiXEmW4ODpTSSNcFPhQ0DE6kGniIeWzDEpxIQGYiBkKtaNhMl1i0 adNejzqdy/uYKZhH05f7CJMgpw0I2jNlfSbRv4FvzdXMjLDb+tTf6mWeV4LEdPuFCzTE yybmaBxyzM+x/Y05aWQob/0+ul569ACMxJ7Gs=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=wUYwleTXVq1sYleKtcoil27U4aQFrjAAuWUeqpTnlWQ=; b=CPjcXEd7Fn3jaa+CatlDc+3XMZNC3IMvLelMvudPjV8dtmF8zMylPhv0ayJPnMu8SP s4mO1/PjhdHxEv3cvTBhsvCpdElXiysD2KBdnnbAU8FGtZ2aay96xshzpjwnq1QfTDCL ovsbcwOVuNvB+cAhe9tSCjXAa1Z8j+CmGY2N51cefc7Zd0Mro4oBSFmhjqhYMZdD40ql b5GdH+Y6W+LZkrZl08Ojtfmws1+U00OAmBT5OyM4prULbQwdENKEBJ/42uK8b4II3S8E UTA6/Oh3wnymxT1qwnyaa6GG7CwXDB98OrGalRSqIHWCYAvVsPvNL5moFuGrFzRrZ4AY 7+yA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1I2Kg5CahKbNEtIzIzIoyxt8oUOqgc8R+2uGo8GrMFwiwOdpmmN9lVlKTpqzMcZutXgNIploYT//J/KheG
X-Received: by 10.200.47.75 with SMTP id k11mr42001039qta.153.1490214599885; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 13:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.103.235 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 13:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20170322201547.wsglwbeodagbotvq@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
References: <0A3A3346-9B5D-48B7-BB52-6DEE39A91200@iii.ca> <20170322201547.wsglwbeodagbotvq@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
From: Eric Ptak <eptak@mydevices.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 21:29:59 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK8ZHO3rsCxK2WNcDAwqpsq7Y5AfU6xT8qUTjLa5j=Z_gipZcQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: core@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11467050ddc121054b579fdd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/dFqopaB0XydHDvXhoOoRRTY6xdE>
Subject: Re: [core] RSSI in SenML
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 20:30:04 -0000

Hi,
Giving a meaning (good, medium, bad reception) to a RSSI value
really depends on the radio frequency and modulation used, say the protocol.
Zigbee, Bluetooth, WiFi, GSM, LoRa ... all have different range where the
signal is good or bad.
It also depends on the internal hardware design. dBm looks to be the
standard unit for a RSSI value.

Up to the application layer to provide or not a meaning that depends on the
device and the use case.
Finally Signal quality also depends on the SNR, Signal-to-Noise ratio.

Best,
Eric.

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Christian Amsüss <
c.amsuess@energyharvesting.at> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:47:12PM -0600, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> > I got a request to add RSSI to the table in 12.1 of  of SenML
> >
> > Symbol: RSSI
> >
> > Description: Received signal strength indication
> >
> > Type: float
>
> I've been using signal strengths for some time in SenML, and they were
> in those applications provided in dBm, which I converted according to
> what the spec says (or rather said back then, this has been operational
> since 2014) about falling back to UCUM as UCUM:B[W].
>
> The recommendations w/rt UCUM have been demoted since then, but it is
> still common in the other units there to be specific and comparable (dB
> being the exception). RSSI with any real unit would not have any meaning
> outside of that device's receptor, and could just as well be represented
> without any unit. I'd support adding something that has the semantic
> meaning of received signal strength (dBm would be more common than the
> by-the-letters-of-UCUM B[W] unit), but a plain RSSI would IMO lead to
> confusion in any inhomogenous setup.
>
> Best regards
> Christian
>
> --
> To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to greater
> powers.
>   -- Bene Gesserit axiom
>
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> core@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email