mls-iot

>>> > I think the default is we assume reasonably powerful general purpose
>>> > computers,
>>>
>>> Constrained devices are indeed hard to design for (and there are many
>>> dimensions of constraint - code size, memory, storage, battery, etc.). I
>>> wouldn't necessarily argue for supporting Class 0 devices (which
>>> according to RFC 7228 are "very constrained sensor-like motes"), but
>>> Class 2 devices (which are "fundamentally capable of supporting most of
>>> the same protocol stacks as used on notebooks or servers") would be
>>> great. I'm not sure where to draw the line and whether to include Class
>>> 1 devices (which "are quite constrained in code space and processing
>>> capabilities, such that they cannot easily talk to other Internet nodes
>>> employing a full protocol stack such as using HTTP, Transport Layer
>>> Security (TLS), and related security protocols and XML-based data
>>> representations").
>>>
>>> > so if people want IoT to be designed for -- which it
>>> > shouldn't, IMO -- then that would have to be stated in the charter.
>>>
>>> No matter what we decide, it would be good to make that explicit in the
>>> charter.



---

> Perhaps.  I'll note that I did raise IoT at the BoF, and the sense
> of the room seemed to be that it was out of scope.  That said, the
> draft charter should be going out for community review real soon
> now, and we can certainly have a discussion then.

I don’t think so, my feeling was that the room didn’t want to make the 
center of the work, but I do think that MLS is useful and might be used
for IoT.

We definitely are and, in the future, should be keeping in mind constraint 
environments when designing MLS even though it is not the top priority...