IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr> Tue, 16 March 2021 10:48 UTC

Return-Path: <emmanuel.baccelli@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: iot-directorate@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iot-directorate@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D839D3A2190 for <iot-directorate@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 03:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 0HoPS8CWN58M for <iot-directorate@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 03:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-f48.google.com (mail-ej1-f48.google.com [209.85.218.48]) (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 E3B763A218A for <iot-directorate@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 03:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-f48.google.com with SMTP id bm21so71294300ejb.4 for <iot-directorate@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 03:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=2QQhan+SsrFWVg6KmNjOXI1M8Tiv0/3fN6YFCNR8XNg=; b=UzgPWrnhmKPhgvwWeyRAsxWVrMqbYPR3ZMt/InsqkOvivVRiq9vtCFvOHsKGy81WFj FSG8bTTL+n1tGYYNw6tqXGbkQMaJOMHU1Fi7cYmc1Wgyf0HhNtBwWC36/AyxUMZGqLYq J+/sfHzKpJRv44Su0sywoubbp60TpjB9FveUysOcS8+6B58HF+WOvCNWJiVY2NHKJEa1 fQVW9as6yDUODxmQMC3f7E+9VMr2gN/hEGBCstoQHfjM1vkPESZIkB+XpK6gFuASCj9M TQL9epOpSnndDYEeF0WbBC3/lPTmuMIak5BMes4cA3hJWAnYGeCf2n2CTHtlLUCWWWTK nJOA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531QfQe0/keeGOCepoOILXG/lqNQyrZqlrW9En42HpKe3tU9BLod PjOwoHpko7JC+suhTnfGIZrF6wmGg+H/UKZDXS4i2kYLSnoLsA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyjhywUJ2dyj8I1F8xoNkLGqI3o+W0bz22vE15C1UVJ5L489CTES3+ieTJvvxxh+CnUCYmMoRWpJk0qGA8SuFg=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4407:: with SMTP id x7mr3172074ejo.546.1615891667114; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 03:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHYRG6Nhh4YZrs_0jLTyFJu5XTLLVy_SWT0+rN8EZ2JanY8UxQ@mail.gmail.com> <C7620420-A4A4-45D7-8FDD-922C0B90C796@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <C7620420-A4A4-45D7-8FDD-922C0B90C796@tzi.org>
From: Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 11:47:35 +0100
Message-ID: <CANK0pbYaMzYWo-R3U5-MZPXTAN+MOaFXE=TTWthNkWod+88-TA@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF IoT Directorate <iot-directorate@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d05e1b05bda5187d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-directorate/sS_l8AW1FsO6qO5ZnNGkOvrj1r8>
Subject: Re: [Iot-directorate] Question on IETF IOT-devices scope
X-BeenThere: iot-directorate@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the IoT Directorate Members <iot-directorate.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iot-directorate>, <mailto:iot-directorate-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iot-directorate/>
List-Post: <mailto:iot-directorate@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iot-directorate-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-directorate>, <mailto:iot-directorate-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 10:48:04 -0000

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.
>

+1

Concerning terminology: there was a time when the term "IoT device" was too
often misunderstood as *excluding* the microcontroller range.
(Hence docs like RFC7228 and others which needed to spell out some
constraints not to be forgotten.)
Now it seems we amazingly reversed this situation!

Concerning protocols: what is shown to work with less resources, can also
work when more resources are available...

--Emmanuel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email