Subject: [Lwip] Comments on draft-ietf-lwig-terminology-01

From: Ari Keränen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 20:30:17 +0200

Hi,

Here's couple of comments on the terminology draft.

2.1.  Constrained Nodes

Should this perhaps include also processing (CPU) power? This has impact 
e.g., on the level of security you can (reasonably) achieve.

2.2.  Constrained Networks

Should this mention low (radio) range too?

3.  Classes of Constrained Devices

>      | Class 0, C0 | << 10 KiB             | << 100 KiB              |
>      | Class 1, C1 | ~ 10 KiB              | ~ 100 KiB               |
[...]
>    Class 0 devices are very constrained sensor-like motes.  Most likely
>    they will not be able to communicate directly with the Internet in a
>    secure manner.

I'm still wondering where to put Arduinos and similar with this 
classification. You can do secure communication over the Internet with 
them (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aks-crypto-sensors-02), but they 
clearly have less RAM (e.g., 2 KB for an ATmega328 on Arduino Uno) and 
Flash (32 KB, same board) than class 1 devices. A "real" class 0 device 
to me would be something like a 1-wire sensor.

Cheers,
Ari