Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de> 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 <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- anima@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to anima-le...@ietf.org
