Re: [Lwip] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-lwig-cellular-05: (with COMMENT)

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

Ben,

Ari and I were preparing the final changes to the draft
for the RFC editor today, and as a part of that I promised
to reply to your comments, Ben. Thanks for the
review!

> -- 3, radio technology:
> Can you elaborate on the meaning of "bundling applications together"?
> Does it mean bundling the messages together for multiple applications?
> Something else?

Looking at this text, I think it could have been clearer:

      Note that for situations where there are several applications on
      the same device wishing to communicate with the Internet in some
      manner, bundling those applications together at the same time can
      be very useful.  Some guidance for these techniques in the
      smartphone context can be found in [Android-Bundle].

What we meant was timing synchronisation, so that for instance,
if you have three apps that communicate every 10mins, they could
all do that at the same time, rather than spaced random number of minutes
apart, leading to communications having to be up more often.

Suggested edit:

      Note that for situations where there are several applications on
      the same device wishing to communicate with the Internet in some
      manner, bundling those applications together so that they can
      communicate at the same time can be very useful.  Some
      guidance for these techniques in the smartphone context can
      be found in [Android-Bundle].


> -- 7: "If sub-second response time is not
>   needed, a slightly more infrequent checking process may save some
>   power."
> Perhaps more than slightly?

Agree. I’d just delete the word “slightly”.

> -- 7, paragraph 3:
> Is the "device" in the 4th sentence the same as the "sensor”?

Yes, the first sentence says “sensor-type devices”. But I’m ok using
either “sensor” or “device” consistently after that first sentence. But
I think “device” is consistent with the rest of the document.

Jari