Re: [Iot-directorate] Question on IETF IOT-devices scope

[Bruce Nordman <[e-mail]>]

All--
  As someone who works on energy use of devices in buildings, we categorize
devices by their Primary Function - e.g. space conditioning, water heat,
light, etc.  I have long proposed a category of Electronics as devices
whose primary function is Information.  I have NOT studied various IoT
definitions.  To me, IoT are devices whose primary function is other than
Information - really everything not in Electronics - devices whose
primary function is to be interactive with the physical world.  This is
probably most useful as a possible supplement to another definition, not a
replacement.
  I do have an interest in device classification, e.g. from my web page:

   - *Device Classification*. Report on Simple Universal Device
   Classification
   <https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8B9XW6B7prlc0pfWDNnUlU5dmc>
(2014), Internet
   Draft <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nordman-classification-00> and
   Presentation <http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/82/slides/appsawg-8.pdf> from
   IETF 82. *Taxonomy*
   <https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8B9XW6B7prlU0tWdVhENDE3ODg> of
   electronic and miscellaneous products (2006)

Thanks.
--Bruce

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:17 AM Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Carsten, *:
>
> Imho, no good deed goes unpunished: Maybe because of rfc7228 there is a
> little bit of the mis-perception in the IETF that Io(T)hings are primarily
> things
> with such memory/bandwidth/power constraints. Of course, a lot of
> low-power networking work the IETF will have overall contributed to this
> biased thinking we may have.
>
> I for once think that (T)hings like cars as a device itself constituted
> from maybe multiple networks with sub(T)hings will evolve to be a very
> nice counter-example: As an electric car its not really power constrained
> (definition: if you can waste highly toxic battery stored energy to warm
> some passenger buttock, you are not a power constrained device ? ;-). With
> maybe even in excess of Gigabits worth of streaming telemetry/video being
> rocessed when autonomous, its also not bandwidth constrained. Arguably not
>  in the sense of rfc7228 compute constrained (definition: more compute
> power
> than a current cell-phone is not compute constrained ? ;-).
>
> But such examples and fun with them aside: I think one important
> "constraint"
>  that we have not formalized, but which might be a better/broader
> classifier for
> 'non-IT' (T)hings is the absence of a personal caretaker/user for the
> device and/or typical user-interface elements through which such a
> caretaker
> can normally or at last in key ops scenarios manage the device: keyboard,
> mouse,
> screen, or even rs232/usb console. Maybe there is some nice new
> terminology/classification to be written to amend rfc7228. "Interfacing
> constrained
> devices".
>
> Cheers
>     Toerless
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:09:44PM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> > On 2021-03-15, at 22:55, Chakrabarti, Samita <samita.chakrabarti=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Should IoT-Directorate members consider Thread Mesh stub networks as
> one of topics under IOT-DIR scope of discussion or part of IoT work?
> >
> > The intention of the IETF IoT work was always to enable networks that
> *include* constrained devices, not to limit the work to just the
> constrained devices.
> > So I see no contradiction to discuss less-constrained devices as well.
> >
> > Grüße, Carsten
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Iot-directorate mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-directorate
>
> --
> ---
> [e-mail]
>
> --
> Iot-directorate mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-directorate
>


-- 
*Bruce Nordman*
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
*nordman.lbl.gov <http://nordman.lbl.gov>*
[e-mail]
510-486-7089; m: 510-501-7943