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

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

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.