Hi, On the point below:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2026 at 07:57, John Mattsson <john.mattsson= [email protected]> wrote: > William Atwood wrote: > >For discussion of the feasibility of using BRSKI in a very constrained > environment (specifically, LoRaWAN) > > I don't want to say that the examined LoRaWAN is not “very constrained,” > but my understanding is that even cBRSKI relies on DTLS with X.509, which > we know is highly problematic for "very very constrained" radio networks. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison/ > > Is there any document that explicitly classifies the “constrainedness” of > radio networks? > Yes: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iotops-7228bis 7228bis defines classes of networks (Section 5). In particular, Section 5.1 defines "Classes of Link Layer MTU Size" and Section 5.3 defines "Classes of physical layer bit rate". For example, assuming EU frequency bands, LoRaWAN would be categorized as follows: - DR0 to DR3 and DR8 to DR11 belong to the S1 class (L2 MTU size from 13 to 127 bytes) - DR4 to DR7 belong to the S2 class (L2 MTU size from 128 to 1279 bytes) - DR0 to DR2 and DR8 to DR11 belong to the B1 class (PHY bit rate from 10 to 10^3 bit/s) - DR3 to DR7 belong to the B2 class (PHY bit rate from 10^3 to 10^6 bit/s) I hope this helps! Cheers, Carles
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
