RFC 7228
Terminology for Constrained-Node Networks
Abstract 🌸
Internet Protocol Suite tech is showing up on tiny devices that have very limited power, memory, and processing 🔋. This document gives a bunch of basic terms that have been useful in the standards work for these constrained-node networks 🧠✨.
Status of This Memo 📜
This doc is not an Internet Standards Track spec. It's published for informational purposes 📚, so think FYI, not a rulebook.
It's a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), and it reflects the consensus of the IETF community 🫶. It got public review and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not every IESG-approved document is a candidate for any level of Internet Standard, so check Section 2 of RFC 5741 for the full scoop 💅.
For the current status, any errata, and how to send feedback, head to http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228 🔗.
Copyright Notice 🎀
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved ©️.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) as they stand on the publication date. Please read these carefully, because they spell out your rights and restrictions for this doc 📖. Code Components pulled out of this document must include Simplified BSD License text, as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions, and they come without warranty, as described in the Simplified BSD License ⚖️.
Table of Contents 🗺️
1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. Core Terminology ................................................4
2.1. Constrained Nodes ..........................................4
2.2. Constrained Networks .......................................5
2.2.1. Challenged Networks .................................6
2.3. Constrained-Node Networks ..................................7
2.3.1. LLN .................................................7
2.3.2. LoWPAN, 6LoWPAN .....................................8
3. Classes of Constrained Devices ..................................8
4. Power Terminology ..............................................10
4.1. Scaling Properties ........................................10
4.2. Classes of Energy Limitation ..............................11
4.3. Strategies for Using Power for Communication ..............12
5. Security Considerations ........................................14
6. Acknowledgements ...............................................14
7. Informative References .........................................141. Introduction ✨
Okay, bestie, so picture small devices with limited CPU, memory, and power 🤏. People call them "constrained devices" (they're often sensors/actuators, smart objects, or smart devices 🌷), and they can form a network where they become "constrained nodes" 🕸️. The network itself can be constrained too, with unreliable or lossy channels, limited and unpredictable bandwidth, and a highly dynamic topology 🌪️. It's giving chaos, but make it networking.
Constrained devices might gather info in all kinds of settings, like natural ecosystems, buildings, and factories, and then send that info to one or more server stations 📡. They might also act on information by doing some physical action, including displaying it 💡. They can work under serious resource constraints, like limited battery and computing power, little memory, and not much wireless bandwidth or ability to communicate 🪫. These constraints tend to make each other worse 😭. Other entities on the network, like a base station or a controlling server, might have way more computing and communication resources and can support the interaction between constrained devices and apps in more traditional networks 🏰.
Today, lots of constrained devices of different sizes, with different resources and capabilities, are getting connected 🎉. Mobile personal gadgets, building-automation devices, cellular phones, machine-to-machine (M2M) devices, and other devices all benefit from talking to other "things" nearby or somewhere out on the Internet 🫧. This is how the Internet of Things (IoT) becomes real, built out of uniquely identifiable and addressable objects (things) 🦋. Over the next decade, this could grow to large numbers [FIFTY-BILLION] of Internet-connected constrained devices, which would hugely increase the Internet's size and scope 🚀.
This document gives a bunch of basic terms that have been useful in standards work for constrained environments 📖. It isn't trying to cover the whole field exhaustively 🙈. The goal is just to make sure a few core terms are used consistently across the different groups working in this space 💜.
In this document, "byte" is used in its now-customary sense as a synonym for "octet" 🍓. When sizes of semiconductor memory are given, the prefix "kibi" (1024) gets combined with "byte" to make "kibibyte", abbreviated "KiB", meaning 1024 bytes [ISQ-13] 💾.
In computing, "power" often means "computing power" or "processing power", like CPU performance 🧮. In this document, though, "power" means electrical power unless it's explicitly said otherwise ⚡. "Mains-powered" is shorthand for being permanently connected to a stable electrical power grid 🔌.
2. Core Terminology 💅
There are two important aspects to _scaling_ within the Internet of Things 📈:
- scaling up Internet technologies to a large number [FIFTY-BILLION] of inexpensive nodes, while
- scaling down the characteristics of each of these nodes and of the networks built out of them, so this scaling up is economically and physically viable 🪙.
The need to scale down node characteristics is what leads to "constrained nodes" 🎯.
2.1. Constrained Nodes 🧸
The term "constrained node" is best defined by contrasting its characteristics with certain widely held expectations about more familiar Internet nodes 🪞:
Constrained Node: A node where some of the characteristics that are otherwise pretty much taken for granted for Internet nodes at the time of writing are not attainable 😤. This is often due to cost constraints and/or physical constraints on things like size, weight, and available power and energy 🪫. The tight limits on power, memory, and processing resources lead to hard upper bounds on state, code space, and processing cycles, which makes optimizing energy and network bandwidth usage a dominating consideration in all design requirements 🔥. Also, some layer-2 services, such as full connectivity and broadcast/multicast, may be lacking 🙃.
This isn't a rigorous definition, but it's grounded in the state of the art, and it clearly sets constrained nodes apart from server systems, desktop or laptop computers, powerful mobile devices like smartphones, and so on 📱. There may be many design considerations that lead to these constraints, including cost, size, weight, and other scaling factors ⚖️.
(An alternative term, when the properties as a network node aren't the focus, is "constrained device" 🎀.)
There are multiple facets to the constraints on nodes, and they often apply in combination. For example:
- constraints on the maximum code complexity (ROM/Flash),
- constraints on the size of state and buffers (RAM),
- constraints on the amount of computation feasible in a period of time ("processing power"),
- constraints on the available power, and
- constraints on user interface and accessibility in deployment (ability to set keys, update software, etc.).
Section 3 defines a small number of interesting classes ("class-N" for N = 0, 1, 2) of constrained nodes, focusing on relevant combinations of the first two constraints 🗂️. When it comes to available power, [RFC6606] distinguishes "power-affluent" nodes (mains-powered or regularly recharged) from "power-constrained nodes" that draw their power from primary batteries or by using energy harvesting 🔋☀️. More detailed power terminology is in Section 4 💡.
Constrained nodes often lead to constraints on the networks they're part of too 🕸️. But networks can also have constraints that are pretty much independent of their nodes' constraints 🤯. So we distinguish "constrained networks" from "constrained-node networks" 💖.
2.2. Constrained Networks 🌐
We define "constrained network" in a similar way 🫶:
Constrained Network: A network where some of the characteristics that are pretty much taken for granted with link layers in common use in the Internet at the time of writing are not attainable 🚧.
Constraints may include:
- low achievable bitrate/throughput (including limits on duty cycle),
- high packet loss and high variability of packet loss (delivery rate),
- highly asymmetric link characteristics,
- severe penalties for using larger packets (e.g., high packet loss due to link-layer fragmentation),
- limits on reachability over time (a substantial number of devices may power off at any point in time but periodically "wake up" and can communicate for brief periods of time), and
- lack of (or severe constraints on) advanced services such as IP multicast 📵.
More generally, we talk about constrained networks whenever at least some of the nodes involved in the network show these characteristics 👀.
And again, there can be several reasons for this 🤷♀️:
- cost constraints on the network,
- constraints posed by the nodes (for constrained-node networks),
- physical constraints (e.g., power constraints, environmental constraints, media constraints such as underwater operation, limited spectrum for very high density, electromagnetic compatibility),
- regulatory constraints, such as very limited spectrum availability (including limits on effective radiated power and duty cycle) or explosion safety, and
- technology constraints, such as older and lower-speed technologies that are still operational and may need to stay in use for some more time 🕰️.
Part 1 of 4 is done! 🌈 Next up: Section 2.2.1 (Challenged Networks) and everything after it, so stay tuned 💜
2.2.1. Challenged Networks 🌪️
okay so a constrained network is NOT automatically a "challenged network" [FALL] 💅 bestie, these are two different vibes:
Challenged Network: A network that has serious trouble maintaining what an application would today expect of the end-to-end IP model, e.g., by:
- not being able to offer end-to-end IP connectivity at all,
- exhibiting serious interruptions in end-to-end IP connectivity, or
- exhibiting delay well beyond the Maximum Segment Lifetime (MSL) defined by TCP [RFC0793].
all challenged networks are constrained networks in some sense 🫶, but not all constrained networks are challenged networks. there's no well-defined boundary between the two, though 🤷♀️ Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) was designed to cope with challenged networks [RFC4838] 🧚
2.3. Constrained-Node Networks 🕸️
Constrained-Node Network: A network whose characteristics are influenced by being composed of a significant portion of constrained nodes.
a constrained-node network is always a constrained network 😭 because of the network constraints that come from the node constraints, but it may also have other constraints that already make it a constrained network. ✨
the rest of this subsection introduces two extra terms that are in active use in the constrained-node network area, without any intent to define them: LLN and (6)LoWPAN 🎀
2.3.1. LLN
"Low-Power and Lossy Network (LLN)" is a related term that's been used to describe the focus of the IETF ROLL working group 🌈 The ROLL (Routing Over Low-Power and Lossy) terminology document [RFC7102] defines LLNs like this:
LLN: Low-Power and Lossy Network. Typically composed of many embedded devices with limited power, memory, and processing resources interconnected by a variety of links, such as IEEE 802.15.4 or low-power Wi-Fi. There is a wide scope of application areas for LLNs, including industrial monitoring, building automation (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), lighting, access control, fire), connected home, health care, environmental monitoring, urban sensor networks, energy management, assets tracking, and refrigeration.
ngl LLNs are giving a lot of drama 💀 they often lose a lot of signal at the physical layer, the delivery rate swings around a lot, and there's some short-term unreliability, but also some medium-term stability. that stability is what makes it worth it to build directed acyclic graphs that stay stable for routing over the medium term, and to take measurements on the edges, like Expected Transmission Count (ETX) [RFC6551] 📊 not all LLNs are made of low-power nodes, though [RPL-DEPLOYMENT] 🙈
LLNs are typically made of constrained nodes, and that leads to operation modes like the "non-storing mode" defined by RPL (the IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks [RFC6550]) 💜 so, in the terminology of this document, an LLN is a constrained-node network with certain network characteristics, which include constraints on the network as well 🦋
2.3.2. LoWPAN, 6LoWPAN 🐝
one interesting class of constrained network that's often used as a constrained-node network is "LoWPAN" [RFC4919] 🌸 the name is inspired by an IEEE 802.15.4 working group (low-rate wireless personal area networks (LR-WPANs)). the expansion of the LoWPAN acronym, "Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network", has a hard-to-justify "Personal" 😂 that comes from the history of task group naming in IEEE 802 more than from LoWPANs being about one single person. honestly LoWPANs have been suggested for urban monitoring, control of large buildings, and industrial control applications, so the "Personal" is just a vestige 🫠 sometimes the term is read as "Low-Power Wireless Area Networks" [WEI] 🙌 originally focused on IEEE 802.15.4, "LoWPAN" (or "6LoWPAN" when used for IPv6) also refers to networks built from similarly constrained link-layer technologies [V6-BTLE] [V6-DECT-ULE] [V6-G9959] ✨
3. Classes of Constrained Devices 👑
despite the overwhelming variety of Internet-connected devices that can be imagined 🌍 it can be worthwhile to have some succinct terminology for different classes of constrained devices. in this document, the class designations in Table 1 may be used as rough indications of device capabilities:
+-------------+-----------------------+-------------------------+
| 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 |
+-------------+-----------------------+-------------------------+
Table 1: Classes of Constrained Devices (KiB = 1024 bytes)as of writing, these characteristics match up with distinguishable clusters of commercially available chips and design cores for constrained devices 🔥 the class boundaries are expected to move over time, but Moore's law is less effective in the embedded space than in personal computing devices 😤 gains from more transistors and density are more likely to get put into cutting cost and power requirements than into constantly boosting computing power 💸
Class 0 devices are very constrained sensor-like motes 🥺 they're so limited in memory and processing that they most likely won't have the resources to talk directly to the Internet in a secure way (rare heroic, narrowly targeted implementation efforts aside 🦸♀️). Class 0 devices will take part in Internet communications with the help of larger devices acting as proxies, gateways, or servers. they generally can't be secured or managed comprehensively in the traditional sense 💀 they'll most likely be preconfigured (and rarely, if ever, reconfigured) with a very small data set. for management, they could answer keepalive signals and send on/off or basic health indications 🍓
Class 1 devices are quite constrained in code space and processing, so they can't easily talk to other Internet nodes that use a full protocol stack like HTTP, Transport Layer Security (TLS), and related security protocols and XML-based data representations 🙃 BUT they're capable enough to use a protocol stack designed specifically for constrained nodes (like the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) over UDP [COAP]) and have real conversations without a gateway node 🗣️✨ they can even support the security functions required on a large network. so they can be integrated as fully developed peers into an IP network, but they need to be parsimonious with state memory, code space, and often power expenditure for protocol and application usage 🔋
Class 2 devices are less constrained and can fundamentally support most of the same protocol stacks used on notebooks or servers 💻 still, even these devices can benefit from lightweight, energy-efficient protocols and from using less bandwidth 🌿 plus, using fewer resources for networking leaves more resources for applications 🤩 so using the protocol stacks defined for more constrained devices on Class 2 devices might reduce development costs and increase interoperability 🫶
Constrained devices with capabilities significantly beyond Class 2 exist 🚀 they're less demanding from a standards development point of view, since they can largely use existing protocols unchanged. this document therefore doesn't try to define classes beyond Class 2 🙅♀️ these devices can still be constrained by a limited energy supply 🪫
when we look at the capabilities of constrained nodes, especially Class 1 devices, it's SO important to figure out what kinds of applications they can run and which protocol mechanisms would fit best 🎯 because of memory and other limitations, each specific Class 1 device might only support a few selected functions for its intended operation. in other words, the set of functions that can actually be supported isn't fixed per device type: devices with similar constraints might choose to support different functions 🧩 even Class 2 devices, which have more functionality and may be able to offer a more complete set of functions, still need to be assessed for the kinds of applications they'll run and the protocol functions they'd need 📝 to derive any requirements, the use cases and the involvement of the devices in the application and the operational scenario need to be analyzed 🔍 use cases may combine constrained devices of multiple classes as well as more traditional Internet nodes 💖
4. Power Terminology ⚡
devices don't just differ in computing capabilities, they also differ in available power and/or energy 🔌 it's harder to find recognizable clusters in this space, but it's still useful to introduce some common terminology 🎀
4.1. Scaling Properties 📏
the power and/or energy available to a device can vary wildly 🎢 from kilowatts to microwatts, from essentially unlimited to hundreds of microjoules 😳
instead of defining classes or clusters, we simply state an approximate value for one or both of the quantities in Table 2, using the International System of Units (SI units) 🌟
+------+--------------------------------------------------+---------+
| Name | Definition | SI Unit |
+------+--------------------------------------------------+---------+
| Ps | Sustainable average power available for the | W |
| | device over the time it is functioning | (Watt) |
| | | |
| Et | Total electrical energy available before the | J |
| | energy source is exhausted | (Joule) |
+------+--------------------------------------------------+---------+
Table 2: Quantities Relevant to Power and Energythe value of Et may need to be read together with an indication of the period of time the value covers; see Section 4.2 🕰️
some devices enter a "low-power" mode before the energy available in a period is used up, or even have multiple such steps on the way to exhaustion 🔋😵 for these devices, Ps would need to be given for each of the modes/steps 💜
4.2. Classes of Energy Limitation ✨
okay so bestie, we already talked about devices being limited on power, but some of them are also (or only) limited on energy 🔋💖 If there's no relevant energy limit at all, the device gets classified as E9 💅 Now the energy limit can be about the total energy it has for its whole usable life 🥺 like a device that gets tossed when its non-replaceable primary battery dies. That one's E2, the lifetime-limited queen 👑 If the limit is only for a specific period, it's E1 🦋 Think a solar device with only enough juice for the night, a gadget you plug into a charger that has a window of time between recharges, or a device with a periodic (primary) battery replacement schedule. Finally, there might be only enough energy for a specific event, like one button press on an energy-harvesting light switch. Those are E0 💀
Lowkey, this is kind of a both/and situation 🫶 In a sense, a lot of E1 devices are also E2, because the rechargeable battery only has so many useful recharge cycles before it's cooked 😭
Here's the full tea in Table 3 🌸
+------+------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Name | Type of energy limitation | Example Power Source |
+------+------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| E0 | Event energy-limited | Event-based harvesting |
| | | |
| E1 | Period energy-limited | Battery that is |
| | | periodically recharged or |
| | | replaced |
| | | |
| E2 | Lifetime energy-limited | Non-replaceable primary |
| | | battery |
| | | |
| E9 | No direct quantitative | Mains-powered |
| | limitations to available | |
| | energy | |
+------+------------------------------+-----------------------------+
Table 3: Classes of Energy Limitation4.3. Strategies for Using Power for Communication 📡
Okay, this part is so real 😤 Especially with wireless, the radio often eats a huge chunk of the device's total energy 🍓 The design stuff, like the available spectrum, the range you want, and the bitrate you're going for, changes how much power goes into transmitting and receiving 🔥 And how long the device transmits or receives (including potential reception) changes the total energy use too 💜
Different power-usage and network-attachment strategies can be used, depending on what kind of energy source the device has (battery or mains-powered) and how often it actually needs to talk to the network 🧚
Here are the general strategies, no cap 💅
- Always-on: This one fits best when there's no real reason to go to extreme lengths to save power ✨ The device can just stay on like normal, all the time. It can be useful to use power-friendly hardware or limit wireless transmissions, CPU speeds, and other stuff for general power-saving and cooling needs 🌈 But the device can stay connected to the network the whole time 💖
- Normally-off: Under this strategy, the device sleeps for such long stretches that, once it wakes up, it makes sense not to pretend it was connected the whole time 🙈 So the device reattaches to the network when it's woken up 🦋 The main goal is to keep the effort of reattaching, and any application communication that comes with it, as small as possible 🫶
If the device sleeps for long periods and only needs to communicate now and then, the relative jump in energy use during reattachment might be totally acceptable 🌸
- Low-power: This is for devices that need to run on a tiny amount of power but still need to communicate fairly often 😭 That means the hardware, the chosen link-layer mechanisms, and everything else has to be extremely low-power 🔥 Usually, since the gaps between transmissions are short, these devices stay somewhat attached to the network even while they're asleep ✨ Techniques for keeping network-communication power low include keeping the work of re-establishing communication after waking up to a minimum, and tuning how often communication happens (including "duty cycling", where components get switched on and off in a regular cycle) plus other parameters 👑
Here's the strategy summary in Table 4 🎀
+------+--------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Name | Strategy | Ability to communicate |
+------+--------------+---------------------------------------------+
| P0 | Normally-off | Reattach when required |
| | | |
| P1 | Low-power | Appears connected, perhaps with high |
| | | latency |
| | | |
| P9 | Always-on | Always connected |
+------+--------------+---------------------------------------------+
Table 4: Strategies of Using Power for CommunicationNote that everything above is at the device level 🧸 Similar considerations can apply at the communications-interface level too, but this document doesn't define terminology for that part 🦋
"Duty-cycling" is a term people use a lot for power-saving approaches 💜 It describes all forms of periodically switching off some function and only leaving it on for a certain percentage of the time (the "duty cycle") 🌈
[RFC7102] only has two levels, though 🙃 It defines a Non-Sleepy Node as a node that always stays fully powered on (always awake) and can perform communication (P9) 💅 And it defines a Sleepy Node as a node that may sometimes go into a sleep mode (a low-power state to save power) and temporarily suspend protocol communication (P0) 😴 There's no explicit mention of P1 in there, so it's kind of missing the middle vibe ✨
5. Security Considerations 🔐
Okay, bestie, this section is serious 😭 This document only introduces common terminology, and that doesn't raise any new security issues 🫶 BUT the security issues that come from the constraints discussed in this document need to be talked about in the context of specific protocols 💀 For example, Section 11.6 of [COAP], "Constrained node considerations", talks about what specific constraints mean for the security mechanisms being used 🔥 [ROLL-SEC-THREATS] gives a security threat analysis for the RPL routing protocol 🕵️ Implementation considerations for security protocols on constrained nodes are covered in [IKEV2-MINIMAL] and [TLS-MINIMAL] 🌸 And if you want the bigger picture of security in constrained-node networks, check out [IOT-SECURITY] 🧚
6. Acknowledgements 🎀
Shoutout to Dominique Barthel and Peter van der Stok for useful comments 🫶 And Charles Palmer gave a full editorial review, iconic 👑
Peter van der Stok insisted that we include power terminology, which is why Section 4 exists 🔋💖 The text for Section 4.3 is mostly lifted from an earlier version of [COAP-CELLULAR] and has been adapted for this document ✨
7. Informative References ✨
okay bestie, this is the reading list 📚 every entry keeps its exact title, authors, date, and number so you can actually go find each one 🔍
[COAP] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", Work in Progress, June 2013.
[COAP-CELLULAR]
Arkko, J., Eriksson, A., and A. Keranen, "Building Power-
Efficient CoAP Devices for Cellular Networks", Work in
Progress, February 2014.
[FALL] Fall, K., "A Delay-Tolerant Network Architecture for
Challenged Internets", SIGCOMM 2003, 2003.
[FIFTY-BILLION]
Ericsson, "More Than 50 Billion Connected Devices",
Ericsson White Paper 284 23-3149 Uen, February 2011,
<http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/whitepapers/
wp-50-billions.pdf>.
[IKEV2-MINIMAL]
Kivinen, T., "Minimal IKEv2", Work in Progress, October
2013.
[IOT-SECURITY]
Garcia-Morchon, O., Kumar, S., Keoh, S., Hummen, R., and
R. Struik, "Security Considerations in the IP-based
Internet of Things", Work in Progress, September 2013.
[ISQ-13] International Electrotechnical Commission, "International
Standard -- Quantities and units -- Part 13: Information
science and technology", IEC 80000-13, March 2008.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
793, September 1981.
[RFC4838] Cerf, V., Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Durst,
R., Scott, K., Fall, K., and H. Weiss, "Delay-Tolerant
Networking Architecture", RFC 4838, April 2007.
[RFC4919] Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., and C. Schumacher, "IPv6
over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals", RFC
4919, August 2007.
[RFC6550] Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R.,
Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP., and R.
Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012.
[RFC6551] Vasseur, JP., Kim, M., Pister, K., Dejean, N., and D.
Barthel, "Routing Metrics Used for Path Calculation in
Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6551, March 2012.
[RFC6606] Kim, E., Kaspar, D., Gomez, C., and C. Bormann, "Problem
Statement and Requirements for IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Routing", RFC
6606, May 2012.
[RFC7102] Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, January 2014.
[ROLL-SEC-THREATS]
Tsao, T., Alexander, R., Dohler, M., Daza, V., Lozano, A.,
and M. Richardson, "A Security Threat Analysis for Routing
Protocol for Low-power and lossy networks (RPL)", Work in
Progress, December 2013.
[RPL-DEPLOYMENT]
Vasseur, J., Ed., Hui, J., Ed., Dasgupta, S., and G. Yoon,
"RPL deployment experience in large scale networks", Work
in Progress, July 2012.
[TLS-MINIMAL]
Kumar, S., Keoh, S., and H. Tschofenig, "A Hitchhiker's
Guide to the (Datagram) Transport Layer Security Protocol
for Smart Objects and Constrained Node Networks", Work in
Progress, March 2014.
[V6-BTLE] Nieminen, J., Ed., Savolainen, T., Ed., Isomaki, M.,
Patil, B., Shelby, Z., and C. Gomez, "Transmission of IPv6
Packets over BLUETOOTH Low Energy", Work in Progress, May
2014.
[V6-DECT-ULE]
Mariager, P., Ed., Petersen, J., and Z. Shelby,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over DECT Ultra Low Energy",
Work in Progress, July 2013.
[V6-G9959] Brandt, A. and J. Buron, "Transmission of IPv6 packets
over ITU-T G.9959 Networks", Work in Progress, May 2014.
[WEI] Shelby, Z. and C. Bormann, "6LoWPAN: the Wireless Embedded
Internet", ISBN 9780470747995, 2009.Authors' Addresses 🫶
these are the people who wrote it, so here's where to find them 💌
Carsten Bormann
Universitaet Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
D-28359 Bremen
Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-63921
EMail: cabo@tzi.org
Mehmet Ersue
Nokia Solutions and Networks
St.-Martinstrasse 76
81541 Munich
Germany
Phone: +49 172 8432301
EMail: mehmet.ersue@nsn.com
Ari Keranen
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
02420 Jorvas
Finland
EMail: ari.keranen@ericsson.com📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc7228 2014-05
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms