I tend to agree with Joe here. The classification seems a bit arbitrary to me. Carsten, could you provide a bit of background about the chosen values?
On Jan 24, 2012, at 6:34 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > I'm concerned that these ranges are too similar, and the distinction would be > short-lived. > > I expect devices to persistently operate differently when their parameters > are at least 2 order of magnitudes different. > > The numbers below are so close that they will change and thus likely overlap > over timescales that are too short, IMO, for the IETF to be concerned. > > (i.e., there was a time when the difference between 4KB and 8KB was > important; now it's irrelevant) > > Joe > > On 1/24/2012 8:25 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: >> Hey guys, >> >> after sending the workshop announcements to a few working groups I was >> asked what I mean by "constrained" device. >> >> I responded with a pointer to the classification Carsten proposed in >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-lwig-guidance-00: >> >> +---------+-----------------------+-------------------------+ >> | Name | data size (e.g., RAM) | code size (e.g., Flash) | >> +---------+-----------------------+-------------------------+ >> | Class 1 | ~ 10 KiB | ~ 100 KiB | >> | | | | >> | Class 2 | ~ 50 KiB | ~ 250 KiB | >> +---------+-----------------------+-------------------------+ >> >> During the IAB technical plenary at the last IETF meeting Jari claimed >> that we need to have a Class 0 here as well to cover his sensor deployment. >> >> Any thoughts about this classification? >> >> Ciao >> Hannes >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lwip mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
