Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: > Of course, there is still the question to the CoAP WG if they feel that > their CC is good enough for large networks. From my understanding it > could hopefully work, and it would even be better, if they have some > WAN example use-cases of CoAP (but some of the low bitrate radios have > similar latency issues as fast LANs). And if they (CoAP) have ever > asked ICCRG opinion. And as i said, cGRASP is already trying to copy > good parts of CoAP CC (IMHO)...
{for the archive: the CoAP WG is "CORE"}
I think that CoAP fits well under the WAN congestion constraints.
It likely underperforms over WAN links, and you'll never fill a high-latency
link like a satellite with CoAP. Most of the time, the window is 1.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
