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

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 30 Nov 2015, at 9:56, Jari Arkko wrote:

> 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].

That helps, thanks.

>
>
>> -- 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.

On reflection, I'm okay with this as is.

Thanks!

Ben.