Re: [Lwip] Discussion about IoT Device Classes

Zhen Cao <zhencao.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 26 January 2017 06:19 UTC

Return-Path: <zhencao.ietf@gmail.com>
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 E72FF129431 for <lwip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 22:19:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 OUbcWHy3uytd for <lwip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 22:19:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x230.google.com (mail-ua0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40907126FDC for <lwip@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 22:19:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x230.google.com with SMTP id y9so176862536uae.2 for <lwip@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 22:19:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=da351ucnFpelcesuUR5MG6LyDz1pb0Zm1HMWKlm+ajI=; b=cb/4vYNUhwGkxd4Fykra3n1GtOnv3KDjt34ZMdv+bE2cfgHigKD86iIqHyA3gl2Gt1 +t26jSZizMWnkQDg2Loi68G7tuw8CV/4hzd8S8rpeFYlgu9c5XuAc+/z6/XvGasP9nq+ y5DxgqD9rQZIlMhhLEasYcm6wWr8nSKicqURCIcCpnaYZW9WdlS4IcTQ+4nqfkAS0PpA vrCZRgwQ4f4qZ3/tTYbesAhzHgbIqgABBJmCFZjrkFRMxN84/DmNABSB9iwCFxcG7neN Mfr1vWo2YblFvWEjKKnzl5JCSKSYDWnWKHUq80GGiq9UfByeCAXjN/FezDmyQdAqoS0f xLsQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=da351ucnFpelcesuUR5MG6LyDz1pb0Zm1HMWKlm+ajI=; b=Bi728YffEICgL4vRTr/WFU5MK2MRkiC/1iK9Q0q9q+sG77c9eaoUmlzP4b5QGg66nx kfzfWYKi7zo+VHFyU44btX6xGfCypc2+RKX6rxMogi1ABR8/4YjYvgqHOkCe1iKbGIU4 x0xwoTt0JXBy5Ox94GpEk/0k1AaFRsqVp3gDUVp6YGSuCPcdzJSRoBCLQF1zHch/Ujh+ WMw7A9gWiYHZl6yPOTBLV1iDqJ9GpFjooksNp7Zpsg3xpi3KkXzCtn9Q6Yddl3wzrS4o Hwi1y/GTO7rG3D4p35WDjAczpbBx0vqG6McI461tDudFlcV/MooTk3yjVamrHIH8kAsu /oGg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJODjdwrhPKVMB0pOD68vyVPE8DorCkGQgQmVM/nehyyFv4LJPiJ236PAhcHBMCMFq4xHg1aoZDdJQKMQ==
X-Received: by 10.176.74.146 with SMTP id s18mr661176uae.65.1485411543319; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 22:19:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.65.3 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 22:19:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <2e19e2da-f86d-3889-690d-4d624a2c4489@gmx.net>
References: <2e19e2da-f86d-3889-690d-4d624a2c4489@gmx.net>
From: Zhen Cao <zhencao.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 14:19:02 +0800
Message-ID: <CAFxP68ztMA3c7LNSSWrWc-_G0AOKXQnN7cnW9a9K1nTGNJJfCg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lwip/zyMYqNtWGUw9qiAZFPbw7FzOGPw>
Cc: "lwip@ietf.org" <lwip@ietf.org>
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, 26 Jan 2017 06:19:06 -0000

Hi Hannes,

Definitely an interesting topic.  We had some brief discussion at
IETF96, and now we need some concrete items to kickoff.

Anyway, I will add a slot on the next meeting.

Best regards,
Zhen

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Hannes Tschofenig
<hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7228#section-3 defines these three
> classes of IoT devices:
>
>      +-------------+-----------------------+-------------------------+
>      | Name        | data size (e.g., RAM) | code size (e.g., Flash) |
>      +-------------+-----------------------+-------------------------+
>      | Class 0, C0 | << 10 KiB             | << 100 KiB              |
>      |             |                       |                         |
>      | Class 1, C1 | ~ 10 KiB              | ~ 100 KiB               |
>      |             |                       |                         |
>      | Class 2, C2 | ~ 50 KiB              | ~ 250 KiB               |
>      +-------------+-----------------------+-------------------------+
>
> Is there an interest to get together at the next IETF meeting and to
> talk about re-working on these classes and to provide more details about
> the functionality that is included in this calculation based on ongoing
> implementation work?
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lwip mailing list
> Lwip@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
>