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

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Thanks. And of course i did not mean that there was anything wrong with
rfc7228, i just think we had a lot more focus on rfc7228 type constrained
devices than other IoT devices, purely because of the work that was brought
to the IETF.

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 06:52:43PM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 2021-03-16, at 18:16, Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with RFC 7228 (except maybe that we haven???t obsoleted it yet with https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bormann-lwig-7228bis-06):
> It argues that scaling up to the number of Things(*) we actually need requires reducing both the cost of the device itself and the power consumption added by it.  That will maintain a long-term drive to Things that are on the less powerful side (think milliwatt), even if today, still at the bottom of the S-curve, there are lots of wasteful (think watt or more) devices.
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> 
> (*) A definition of Thing is in https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-asdf-sdf-05.html#name-terminology-and-conventions ??? there is some discussion about the word ???device??? here (which may be too narrow), but there is no discussion of constrainedness in that definition.

-- 
---
[e-mail]