Subject: [Lwip] Scenarios dependence

From: "Liu Hong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 16:26:25 +0800

Hi All,

It seems that there are several different Internet of Things scenarios which
may direct to different requirements. For example, some systems need to
interoperate with external nodes while others only allow communications
between internal nodes. Another difference will be that power meters have
plenty of power supply while flood sensors does not even allow lines
connected to them. This may need to be taken into consideration after the
working group is established.

Liu Hong

---

From: Zhen Cao <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 23:28:26 +0800

Hi

Absolutely there are scenario dependent requirements.  But for all
these scenarios, we have this kind of constrained devices where
implementers may have got problems in porting the stack there.  In the
current document, what we have provided is an example scenario with
fix/mobile gateways connecting in/out bound.

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Liu Hong <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Lwip mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
>
>

-- 
Best regards,
Zhen

---

From: ma yc <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 11:04:04 +0800

Hi

I agree that we need to do the work based on constraints rather than application
scenario. However I think the point here is that for different
application scenario,
the constraints may not exist simultaneously. For example, the power meter may
send data every few seconds without considering the power constraints.

I think we need to investigate whether the combination of different
constraints will affect the implementation or not.

BR
Yuanchen

---

From: Rene Struik <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 00:27:47 -0500

Dear colleagues:

In my mind, requirements resulting from realistic deployment scenarios 
should be guiding principle for design, where constraints may of course 
influence the design choices themselves. Please bear in mind here that 
"constraints" are sometimes also in the eye of the beholder. I have seen 
many effort that emphasize limitations as argument for not realizing 
required functionality fail to deliver on initial promise.

Best regards, Rene

On 08/11/2010 10:04 PM, ma yc wrote:
> 2010/11/8 Zhen Cao<[email-masked]>:
>> Hi
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Liu Hong<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>>
>>>

-- 
email: [email-masked]
Skype: rstruik
cell: +1 (647) 867-5658
USA Google voice: +1 (415) 690-7363