Re: [lp-wan] overview draft with some text...

Dear Stephen, 

Thanks a lot for the work!

A general comment before going into details: 

When introducing characteristics and performance of different technologies, I think we need to pay attention that:

	1) focus on the objective characteristics, such as frequency band, bandwidth, data rate, etc. I would avoid using text like “foo has battery life of XXX years” or “bar can support YYY devices in a single cell”. Those kind of characteristics depend on highly on the configuration of the network, application traffic pattern, network environment, etc. It’s very hard to extract useful information from such kind of assertions. 

	2) For each technology, we talk only the current characteristics, not the targeting characteristics (especially those long target). 

	3) It’s welcome to report implementation status of different technologies, but if the contributors choose to do so, please provide a bit more details (such as the scale of the deployment, applications running over it, etc.), with appropriate references. 

The purpose is to have an objective standard as possible for all the technologies listed in the draft. We have to admit that, although we (all?) agree, and called out explicitly that this document is NOT intended to compare which technology is better, we couldn’t stop the readers from making such kind of comparison. 

regards

Jiazi

> On 29 Oct 2016, at 01:57, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> I've incorporated descriptive text about some of the
> "input" technologies for lpwan in -01 of the overview
> draft. [1] That includes text from a lora draft that
> Alper and I also posted recently [2] and from the
> existing sigfox and nb-iot drafts. Next up will be
> adding text from the gap analysis work in the places
> indicated. I hope to post that before the cutoff. We
> may also get text on WI-SUN by then too.
> 
> Comments on any inaccuracies or omissions in [1] are
> of course very welcome. There's a github repo [3] if
> anyone prefers that. (Though my github foo is modest
> so bear with me if taking that approach:-) I'll make
> sure that any substantive discussion initiated on
> github is reflected to the list.
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-lpwan-overview-01
> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-lpwan-lora-overview-01
> [3] https://github.com/sftcd/lpwan-ov
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lp-wan mailing list
> lp-wan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan