IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lwip] Discussion about IoT Device Classes

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 02 February 2017 14:57 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1A9D129416 for <lwip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 06:57:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 3ogO0KvuV6CT for <lwip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 06:57:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CA921293E9 for <lwip@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 06:57:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C62F2009E for <lwip@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:18:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C90E2636BB for <lwip@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 09:57:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "lwip@ietf.org" <lwip@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CANK0pbaPCUW8GV__HEda2k--VrrEByaZjADNeOiX0RFyXMStdQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2e19e2da-f86d-3889-690d-4d624a2c4489@gmx.net> <132DAB99-A623-47CD-9636-7DF67D75C188@tzi.org> <F3B7F8F0-F8B4-4B57-92F6-22701D85787B@tzi.org> <2d9cf5f4-431c-a7ba-08a5-fd506b15912d@gmail.com> <CANK0pbZ8GAqfkZBk7u1xHVCL=befZHm7DY_Y0jZurwZKcU9i0w@mail.gmail.com> <f7bc46a7-8999-d1fa-9f1f-8c11975d7f5c@gmx.net> <CANK0pbaPCUW8GV__HEda2k--VrrEByaZjADNeOiX0RFyXMStdQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 09:57:18 -0500
Message-ID: <31231.1486047438@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lwip/4Ux2pWgOEvRRdfTQG4N3gGDgMM4>
Subject: Re: [Lwip] Discussion about IoT Device Classes
X-BeenThere: lwip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Lightweight IP stack <lwip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lwip/>
List-Post: <mailto:lwip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 14:57:22 -0000

Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr> wrote:
    > concerning "motes", "class 0", or whatever we want to call such
    > devices:
    > indeed, not sure how we should relate with such devices in the
    > document.

    > Do we care to define a "new" category of devices on which no protocol
    > will run that we IETFers specify (e.g. BLE beacons)?

    > I'd say: no, unless it is deemed useful to distinguish from other
    > types of devices
    > that are expected to run IETF protocols in practice.

I say, "yes".

It's useful to be able to say, "dude, that's a class 0 device! You can't make
IPv6 work there, stop trying: you are breaking important functionality"


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email