[Iotops] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-iotops-7228bis-08.txt

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alper,

thank you for this review.

On May 15, 2026, at 10:34, Alper Kamil Demir <akdemir=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I have a couple of notes on the terminology draft:
> - In the abstract, instead of "severe constraints on power, memory, and processing resources," we can say "severe SWaP-C3 (Size, Weight and Power plus Cost, Cooling, and Compliance) resources constraints. The sentence needs to be updated according to SWaP-C3 usage.
> - The text can be updated according to SWaP-C3 usage.

I don’t think adding such an obscure abbreviation would bring benefit.

> - When the "constrained nodes" is used for the first time, we can write it as  "constrained nodes"  ("Constrained devices"). I think we can also get rid of """ within the text or make them bold.

I don’t think that proposal improves the text.
Section 2.1 does address separately how the two terms are related, and how they might differ in connotations.

> -  "Constrained devices might be in charge of gathering information in diverse settings, including natural ecosystems, buildings, and factories, and sending the information to one or more server stations." This sentence sounds wrong. At the end, "sending the information to one or more server stations" does not sound right.

Indeed, this may be easier to parse after s/and sending/and of sending/.
Now noted in https://github.com/lwig-wg/terminology/pull/26 — where we’ll collect nits we find in -08 to correct them in the next revision -09 when that is published.

> - We should better use a table for conventions. Instead of using text. The same goes for terminology. 

I’m not sure how that would work.
Due to the limitations that RFCXML has in supporting formatting of tables, I cannot imagine the result would work better.

> - There is section 1.1, but no section 1.2, 1.3, etc. Either we need to get rid of it or put other sections such as 1.2, 1.3, ... 

It appears that, of 1296 recent RFCs (i.e., published with RFCXMLv3 available), 528 RFCs have at least one top-level section that has one subsection only, for a total of 677 such top-level sections.

I think the document is in good company.

> - "Classes of Constrained (and More Capable) Devices" goes to Classes of Constrained and More Capable Devices 

Assigning classes to more capable devices is a secondary purpose, which why we marked by adding the parenthesis.

> - As the Title is Terminology for Constrained-Node Networks, the draft needs to focus on the terminology only. It seems there is no need for other sections other than terminology, or we need to update the title accordingly. Such as why "4.3. Strategies for Using Power for Communication" is in a document, titled as terminology used in this document is not clear. In general, the title and the text do not seem to match.

People liked the structure and content of RFC 7228, and there have been a lot of comments saying similar things about the 7228bis draft.
The title of the document may not be a perfect description of all its content.
It rarely is, because that would make document titles unwieldy.
Section 4.3 is in the document because it supplies terminology for discussing strategies for power use (such as Normally-Off aka P0), exactly in scope for this document.

Grüße, Carsten