Re: [Lwip] Discussion about IoT Device Classes

[Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carsten and Co-Authors,

thanks for working on the document.

What I am missing is a discussion (which does not need to end in the
final version of the document) on what functionality you consider to be
included in, for example, the class 1 device.

I agree with Emmanuel regarding the difference between the device that
run a RTOS (or special IoT-designed OS) and the devices that run a
general purpose OS, like Linux. This is also a differentiation we make,
as you know.

Ciao
Hannes

PS: I am not sure about the "motes". Are you talking about BLE beacons?

On 02/01/2017 10:57 AM, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:
> Hi Carsten,
> 
> thanks for the initiative. I support it!
> 
> Coarsly, from the software perspective, there are 3 classes of devices:
> 
> - "motes" with fixed, simplistic functionality in software, on which
> resources are so constrained that an operating system and (secure)
> software updates do not make sense.
> 
> - "low-end IoT devices" with more resources and more functionalities in
> software, which run an OS but cannot run generic operating systems such
> as Linux or equivalents/derivatives, and hence run IoT-specific
> operating systems such as RIOT, Contiki etc.
> 
> - "high-end IoT devices" which have enough resources so that they can
> run generic operating systems such as Linux or equivalents/derivatives.
> 
> Each category presents specific challenges, but the "low-end IoT device"
> category is the one where the most fundamental progress is expected, and
> achievable.
> By that I mean that we can hope to transform low-end IoT devices into
> "standard" Internet citizens if we do things right.
> On that level, there is no hope for motes and, on the other hand,
> high-end IoT devices are already Internet citizens.
> 
> From that perspective, I'm not sure defining a "Class 7" would be useful.
> I'm not even sure if defining a "Class 0" is so useful either in the end
> -- if we have no hope that such devices will become "standard" Internet
> citizens.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Emmanuel
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:01 AM, Christian Groves <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     I did a quick read of the draft and to me its not clear what the
>     goal of clause 5.2 "Class of Internet Integration" is.
> 
>     The table talks about internet technologies, the text makes
>     reference to communications patterns (e.g. device-to-cloud) whereas
>     the section is on integration. It also lists I9 which seems to
>     suggest there will be "degrees" on classes of integration between I1
>     and I9.
> 
>     So is the aim to only have 3 types? e.g.
> 
>     Device Internal IP usage - IP Interoperability not an issue.
> 
>     Device to Provider Server - IP Interoperability within a service
>     provider.
> 
>     Device to Any - IP interoperability required between multiple
>     service providers.
> 
>     Or to have something more specific to IP listing what parts of the
>     IP suite are supported?
> 
>     Regards, Christian
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     On 26/01/2017 6:57 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> 
>         On 26 Jan 2017, at 00:38, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>             Sure.  We started that discussion a few IETFs ago and have a
>             bis draft out at
>             draft-bormann-lwig-7228bis.
> 
>         … and the editors’ draft is now at:
> 
>         https://github.com/lwig-wg/terminology
>         <https://github.com/lwig-wg/terminology>
>         and
>         https://lwig-wg.github.io/terminology/
>         <https://lwig-wg.github.io/terminology/>
> 
>         Issues and pull requests are welcome.
>         (Please see
>         https://github.com/lwig-wg/terminology/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md
>         <https://github.com/lwig-wg/terminology/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md>
>         ).
> 
>         (The proposed bis document is an individual submission at this
>         point; we still put it up under the “lwig-wg” organization as
>         there appears to be some interest.)
> 
>         Grüße, Carsten
> 
>         _______________________________________________
>         Lwip mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
>         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip>
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Lwip mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lwip mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
>