Energy-Efficient Features of Internet of Things Protocols
RFC 8352
| Document | Type | RFC - Informational (April 2018) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Carles Gomez , Matthias Kovatsch , Hui Tian , Zhen Cao | ||
| Last updated | 2018-04-03 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
RTGDIR Telechat review
Has Issues
GENART Telechat review
Ready with Issues
IOTDIR Early review
(of
-07)
On the Right Track
INTDIR Early review
(of
-07)
Ready with Nits
|
||
| Stream | WG state | WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up | |
| Document shepherd | Mohit Sethi | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2017-06-26 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 8352 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Suresh Krishnan | ||
| Send notices to | Mohit Sethi <mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - No Actions Needed | |
| IANA action state | No IANA Actions |
RFC 8352
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Gomez
Request for Comments: 8352 UPC
Category: Informational M. Kovatsch
ISSN: 2070-1721 ETH Zurich
H. Tian
China Academy of Telecommunication Research
Z. Cao, Ed.
Huawei Technologies
April 2018
Energy-Efficient Features of Internet of Things Protocols
Abstract
This document describes the challenges for energy-efficient protocol
operation on constrained devices and the current practices used to
overcome those challenges. It summarizes the main link-layer
techniques used for energy-efficient networking, and it highlights
the impact of such techniques on the upper-layer protocols so that
they can together achieve an energy-efficient behavior. The document
also provides an overview of energy-efficient mechanisms available at
each layer of the IETF protocol suite specified for constrained-node
networks.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8352.
Gomez, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 8352 Energy-Efficient Features for IoT April 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Medium Access Control and Radio Duty Cycling . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Techniques for Radio Duty Cycling . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Latency and Buffering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Radio Interface Tuning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Packet Bundling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.6. Power Save Services Available in Example Low-Power Radios 8
3.6.1. Power Save Services Provided by IEEE 802.11 . . . . . 8
3.6.2. Power Save Services Provided by Bluetooth LE . . . . 10
3.6.3. Power Save Services in IEEE 802.15.4 . . . . . . . . 11
3.6.4. Power Save Services in DECT ULE . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. IP Adaptation and Transport Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Routing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Application Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1. Energy-Efficient Features in CoAP . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2. Sleepy Node Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.3. CoAP Timers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.4. Data Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Gomez, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 8352 Energy-Efficient Features for IoT April 2018
1. Introduction
Network systems for monitoring the physical world contain many
battery-powered or energy-harvesting devices. For example, in an
environmental monitoring system or a temperature and humidity
monitoring system, there may not be always on and sustained power
supplies for the potentially large number of constrained devices. In
such deployment scenarios, it is necessary to optimize the energy
consumption of the constrained devices. In this document, we
describe techniques that are in common use at Layer 2 and at Layer 3,
and we indicate the need for higher-layer awareness of lower-layer
features.
Many research efforts have studied this "energy efficiency" problem.
Most of this research has focused on how to optimize the system's
power consumption in certain deployment scenarios or how an existing
network function such as routing or security could be more energy
efficient. Only few efforts have focused on energy-efficient designs
for IETF protocols and standardized network stacks for such
constrained devices [CLASS1-CoAP].
The IETF has developed a suite of Internet protocols suitable for
such constrained devices, including IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless
Personal Area Networks (6LoWPAN) [RFC6282] [RFC6775] [RFC4944], the
IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)
[RFC6550], and the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252].
This document tries to summarize the design considerations for making
the IETF constrained protocol suite as energy efficient as possible.
While this document does not provide detailed and systematic
solutions to the energy-efficiency problem, it summarizes the design
efforts and analyzes the design space of this problem. In
particular, it provides an overview of the techniques used by the
lower layers to save energy and how these may impact on the upper
layers. Cross-layer interaction is therefore considered in this
document from this specific point of view. Providing further design
recommendations that go beyond the layered protocol architecture is
out of the scope of this document.
After reviewing the energy-efficient designs of each layer, we
summarize the document by presenting some overall conclusions.
Though the lower-layer communication optimization is the key part of
energy-efficient design, the protocol design at the upper layers is
also important to make the device energy efficient.
1.1. Terminology
Terms used in this document are defined in [RFC7228] [CNN-TERMS].
Gomez, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 8352 Energy-Efficient Features for IoT April 2018
2. Overview
The IETF has developed protocols to enable end-to-end IP
communication between constrained nodes and fully capable nodes.
This work has expedited the evolution of the traditional Internet
protocol stack to a lightweight Internet protocol stack. As shown in
Figure 1 below, the IETF has developed CoAP as the application layer
and 6LoWPAN as the adaption layer to run IPv6 over IEEE 802.15.4
[IEEE802.15.4] and Bluetooth Low Energy (also referred to as
Bluetooth LE and BTLE), with the support of routing by RPL and
efficient neighbor discovery by 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery (6LoWPAN-
ND). 6LoWPAN is currently being adapted by the 6lo Working Group to
support IPv6 over various other technologies, such as ITU-T G.9959
[G9959], Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications Ultra Low
Energy (DECT ULE) [TS102], Building Automation and Control Networks
Master-Slave/Token-Passing (BACnet MS/TP) [MSTP], and Near Field
Communication [NFC].
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +------+
|HTTP | | FTP | |SNMP | | CoAP |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +------+
\ / / / \
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| TCP | | UDP | | TCP | | UDP |
+-----+ +-----+ ===> +-----+ +-----+
\ / \ /
+-----+ +------+ +-------+ +------+ +-----+
| RTG |--| IPv6 |--|ICMP/ND| | IPv6 |---| RTG |
+-----+ +------+ +-------+ +------+ +-----+
| |
+-------+ +-------+ +----------+
|MAC/PHY| | 6Lo |--|6LoWPAN-ND|
+-------+ +-------+ +----------+
|
+-------+
|MAC/PHY|
+-------+
Figure 1: Traditional and Lightweight Internet Protocol Stack
There are numerous published studies reporting comprehensive
measurements of wireless communication platforms [Powertrace]. As an
example, below we list the energy-consumption profile of the most
common operations involved in communication on a prevalent sensor
node platform. The measurement was based on the Tmote Sky with
ContikiMAC [ContikiMAC] as the Radio Duty Cycling algorithm. From
this and many other measurement reports (e.g., [AN079]), we can see
that the energy consumption of optimized transmission and reception
Gomez, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 8352 Energy-Efficient Features for IoT April 2018
are in the same order. For IEEE 802.15.4 [IEEE802.15.4] and Ultra
WideBand (UWB) links, transmitting may actually be even cheaper than
receiving. It also shows that broadcast and non-synchronized
communication transmissions are energy costly because they need to
acquire the medium for a long time.
+---------------------------------------+---------------+
| Activity | Energy |
| | (microjoules) |
+---------------------------------------+---------------+
| Broadcast reception | 178 |
+---------------------------------------+---------------+
| Unicast reception | 222 |
+---------------------------------------+---------------+
| Broadcast transmission | 1790 |
+---------------------------------------+---------------+
| Non-synchronized unicast transmission | 1090 |
+---------------------------------------+---------------+
| Synchronized unicast transmission | 120 |
+---------------------------------------+---------------+
| Unicast TX to awake receiver | 96 |
+---------------------------------------+---------------+
| Listening (for 1000 ms) | 63000 |
+---------------------------------------+---------------+
Figure 2: Power Consumption of Common Operations Involved in
Communication on the Tmote Sky with ContikiMAC
At the Physical layer, one approach that may reduce the energy
consumption of a device that uses a wireless interface is based on
reducing the device transmit power level, as long as the intended
next hop(s) is still within range of the device. In some cases, if
node A has to transmit a message to node B, a solution to reduce node
A transmit power is to leverage an intermediate device, e.g., node C
as a message forwarder. Let d be the distance between node A and
node B. Assuming free-space propagation, where path loss is
proportional to d^2, if node C is placed right in the middle of the
path between A and B (that is, at a distance d/2 from both node A and
node B), the minimum transmit power to be used by node A (and by node
C) is reduced by a factor of 4. However, this solution requires
additional devices, it requires a routing solution, and it also
increases transmission delay between A and B.
Gomez, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 8352 Energy-Efficient Features for IoT April 2018
3. Medium Access Control and Radio Duty Cycling
In networks, communication and power consumption are interdependent.
The communication device is typically the most power-consuming
component, but merely refraining from transmissions is not enough to
achieve a low power consumption: the radio may consume as much power
in listen mode as when actively transmitting. This illustrates the
key problem known as idle listening, whereby the radio of a device
may be in receive mode (ready to receive any message), even if no
message is being transmitted to that device. Idle listening can
consume a huge amount of energy unnecessarily. To reduce power
consumption, the radio must be switched completely off -- duty-cycled
-- as much as possible. By applying duty cycling, the lifetime of a
device operating on a common button battery may be on the order of
years, whereas otherwise the battery may be exhausted in a few days
or even hours. Duty cycling is a technique generally employed by
devices that use the P1 strategy [RFC7228], which need to be able to
communicate on a relatively frequent basis. Note that a more
aggressive approach to save energy relies on the P0 (Normally-off)
strategy, whereby devices sleep for very long periods and communicate
infrequently, even though they spend energy in network reattachment
procedures.
From the perspective of Medium Access Control (MAC) and Radio Duty
Cycling (RDC), all upper-layer protocols, such as routing, RESTful
communication, adaptation, and management flows, are applications.
Since the duty-cycling algorithm is the key to energy efficiency of
the wireless medium, it synchronizes transmission and/or reception
requests from the higher layers.
MAC and RDC are not in the scope of the IETF, yet lower-layer
designers and chipset manufacturers take great care to save energy.
By knowing the behaviors of these lower layers, engineers can design
protocols that work well with them. The IETF protocols to be
discussed in the following sections are the customers of the lower
layers.
3.1. Techniques for Radio Duty Cycling
This subsection describes three main RDC techniques. Note that more
than one of these techniques may be available or can even be combined
in a specific radio technology:
a) Channel sampling: In this solution, the radio interface of a
device periodically monitors the channel for very short time
intervals (i.e., with a low duty cycle) with the aim of detecting
incoming transmissions. In order to make sure that a receiver
can correctly receive a transmitted data unit, the sender may
Gomez, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 8352 Energy-Efficient Features for IoT April 2018
prepend a preamble of a duration at least the sampling period to
the data unit to be sent. Another option for the sender is to
repeatedly transmit the data unit instead of sending a preamble
before the data unit. Once a transmission is detected by a
receiver, the receiver may stay awake until the complete
reception of the data unit. Examples of radio technologies that
use preamble sampling include ContikiMAC, the Coordinated Sampled
Listening (CSL) mode of IEEE 802.15.4e [IEEE802.15.4], and the
Frequently Listening (FL) mode of ITU-T G.9959 [G9959].
b) Scheduled transmissions: This approach allows a device to know
the particular time at which it should be awake (during some time
interval) in order to receive data. Otherwise, the device may
remain in sleep mode. The decision on the times at which
communication is attempted relies on some form of negotiation
between the involved devices. Such negotiation may be performed
per transmission or per session/connection. Bluetooth Low Energy
(Bluetooth LE) is an example of a radio technology based on this
mechanism.
c) Listen after send: This technique allows a node to remain in
sleep mode by default, then wake up and poll a sender (which must
be ready to receive a poll message) for pending transmissions.
After sending the poll message, the node remains in receive mode
and is ready for a potential incoming transmission. After a
certain time interval, the node may go back to sleep. For
example, this technique is used in the Receiver Initiated
Transmission (RIT) mode of IEEE 802.15.4e [IEEE802.15.4] and in
the transmission of data between a coordinator and a device in
the 2003 version of IEEE 802.15.4 [IEEE802.15.4].
3.2. Latency and Buffering
The latency of a data unit transmission to a duty-cycled device is
equal to or greater than the latency of transmitting to an always-on
device. Therefore, duty cycling leads to a trade-off between energy
consumption and latency. Note that in addition to a latency
increase, RDC may introduce latency variance since the latency
increase is a random variable (which is uniformly distributed if duty
cycling follows a periodic behavior).
On the other hand, due to the latency increase introduced by duty
cycling, a sender waiting for a transmission opportunity may need to
store subsequent outgoing packets in a buffer. This buffering would
increase memory requirements and potentially incur queuing wait
times. Such wait times would in turn contribute to packet
transmission delay and increase the probability of buffer overflow,
leading to losses.
Gomez, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 8352 Energy-Efficient Features for IoT April 2018
3.3. Throughput
Although throughput is not typically a key concern in constrained-
node network applications, it is indeed important in some services in
such networks, such as over-the-air software updates or when off-line
sensors accumulate measurements that have to be quickly transferred
when there is an opportunity for connectivity.
Since RDC introduces inactive intervals in energy-constrained
devices, it reduces the throughput that can be achieved when
communicating with such devices. There exists a trade-off between
the achievable throughput and energy consumption.
3.4. Radio Interface Tuning
The parameters controlling the radio duty cycle have to be carefully
tuned to achieve the intended application and/or network
requirements. On the other hand, upper layers should take into
account the expected latency and/or throughput behavior due to RDC.
The next subsection provides details on key parameters controlling
RDC mechanisms, and thus fundamental trade-offs, for various examples
of relevant low-power radio technologies.
3.5. Packet Bundling
Another technique that may be useful to increase communication energy
efficiency is packet bundling. This technique, which is available in
several radio interfaces (e.g., LTE and some 802.11 variants), allows
for aggregation of several small packets into a single large packet.
Header and communication overhead is therefore reduced.
3.6. Power Save Services Available in Example Low-Power Radios
This subsection presents power save services and techniques used in a
few relevant examples of wireless low-power radios: IEEE 802.11
[IEEE802.11], Bluetooth LE, and IEEE 802.15.4 [IEEE802.15.4]. For a
more detailed overview of each technology, the reader may refer to
the literature or to the corresponding specifications.
3.6.1. Power Save Services Provided by IEEE 802.11
IEEE 802.11 [IEEE802.11] defines the Power Save Mode (PSM) whereby a
station may indicate to an Access Point (AP) that it will enter a
sleep mode state. While the station is sleeping, the AP buffers any
frames that should be sent to the sleeping station. The station
wakes up every listen interval (which can be a multiple of the beacon
interval) in order to receive beacons. The AP signals, by means of a
beacon field, whether there is data pending for the station or not.
Gomez, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 8352 Energy-Efficient Features for IoT April 2018
If there are not frames to be sent to the station, the latter may get
back to sleep mode. Otherwise, the station may send a message
requesting the transmission of the buffered data and stay awake in
receive mode.
IEEE 802.11v [IEEE802.11] further defines mechanisms and services for
power save of stations/nodes that include Flexible Multicast Service
(FMS), Proxy ARP advertisement, extended sleep modes, and traffic
filtering. Upper-layer protocol's knowledge of such capabilities,
provided by the lower layer, enables better interworking.
These services include:
Proxy ARP: The Proxy ARP capability enables an Access Point (AP) to
indicate that the non-AP station (STA) will not receive ARP
frames. The Proxy ARP capability enables the non-AP STA to remain
in power save mode for longer periods of time.
Basic Service Set (BSS) Max Idle Period Management: Enables an AP to
indicate a time period during which the AP does not disassociate a
STA due to non-receipt of frames from the STA. This supports
improved STA power saving and AP resource management.
FMS: A service in which a non-AP STA can request a multicast
delivery interval longer than the Delivery Traffic Indication
Message (DTIM) interval for the purposes of lengthening the period
of time a STA may be in a power save state.
Traffic Filtering Service (TFS): A service provided by an AP to a
non-AP STA that can reduce the number of frames sent to the STA by
dropping individually addressed frames that do not match traffic
filters specified by the STA.
Using the above services provided by the lower layer, the constrained
nodes can achieve either client-initiated power save (via TFS) or
network-assisted power save (Proxy ARP, BSS Max Idle Period, and
FMS).
Upper-layer protocols should synchronize with the parameters such as
FMS interval and BSS MAX Idle Period so that the wireless
transmissions are not triggered periodically.
Gomez, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 8352 Energy-Efficient Features for IoT April 2018
3.6.2. Power Save Services Provided by Bluetooth LE
Bluetooth LE is a wireless low-power communications technology that
is the hallmark component of the Bluetooth 4.0, 4.1, and 4.2
specifications [Bluetooth42]. BTLE has been designed for the goal of
ultra-low power consumption. IPv6 can be run IPv6 over Bluetooth LE
networks by using a 6LoWPAN variant adapted to BTLE [RFC7668].
Bluetooth LE networks comprise a master and one or more slaves, which
are connected to the master. The Bluetooth LE master is assumed to
be a relatively powerful device, whereas a slave is typically a
constrained device (e.g., a Class 1 device).
Medium access in Bluetooth LE is based on a Time-Division Multiple
Access (TDMA) scheme that is coordinated by the master. This device
determines the start of connection events in which communication
between the master and a slave takes place. At the beginning of a
connection event, the master sends a poll message, which may
encapsulate data, to the slave. The latter must send a response,
which may also contain data. The master and the slave may continue
exchanging data until the end of the connection event. The next
opportunity for communication between the master and the slave will
be in the next connection event scheduled for the slave.
The time between consecutive connection events is defined by the
connInterval parameter, which may range between 7.5 ms and 4 s. The
slave may remain in sleep mode from the end of its last connection
event until the beginning of its next connection event. Therefore,
Bluetooth LE is duty-cycled by design. Furthermore, after having
replied to the master, a slave is not required to listen to the
master (and thus may keep the radio in sleep mode) for
connSlaveLatency consecutive connection events. connSlaveLatency is
an integer parameter between 0 and 499 that should not cause link
inactivity for more than connSupervisionTimeout time. The
connSupervisionTimeout parameter is in the range between 100 ms and
32 s.
Upper-layer protocols should take into account the medium access and
duty-cycling behavior of Bluetooth LE. In particular, connInterval,
connSlaveLatency, and connSupervisionTimeout determine the time
between two consecutive connection events for a given slave. The
upper-layer packet generation pattern and rate should be consistent
with the settings of the aforementioned parameters (and vice versa).
For example, assume connInterval = 4 seconds, connSlaveLatency =
7 seconds, and connSupervisionTimeout = 32 seconds. With these
settings, communication opportunities between a master and a slave
will occur during a given interval every 32 seconds. Duration of the
interval will depend on several factors, including number of
Gomez, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 8352 Energy-Efficient Features for IoT April 2018
connected slaves, amount of data to be transmitted, etc. In the
worst case, only one data unit can be sent from master to slave (and
vice versa) every 32 seconds.
3.6.3. Power Save Services in IEEE 802.15.4
IEEE 802.15.4 [IEEE802.15.4] is a family of standard radio interfaces
for low-rate, low-power wireless networking. Since the publication
of its first version in 2003, IEEE 802.15.4 [IEEE802.15.4] has become
the de facto choice for a wide range of constrained-node network
application domains and has been a primary target technology of
various IETF working groups such as 6LoWPAN [RFC6282] [RFC6775]
[RFC4944] and 6TiSCH [ARCH-6TiSCH]. IEEE 802.15.4 [IEEE802.15.4]
specifies a variety of related Physical layer (PHY) and MAC layer
functionalities.
IEEE 802.15.4 [IEEE802.15.4] defines three roles called device,
coordinator, and Personal Area Network (PAN) coordinator. The device
role is adequate for nodes that do not implement the complete IEEE
802.15.4 [IEEE802.15.4] functionality and is mainly targeted for
constrained nodes with a limited energy source. The coordinator role
includes synchronization capabilities and is suitable for nodes that
do not suffer severe constraints (e.g., a mains-powered node). The
PAN coordinator is a special type of coordinator that acts as a
principal controller in an IEEE 802.15.4 [IEEE802.15.4] network.
IEEE 802.15.4 [IEEE802.15.4] defines two main types of networks
depending on their configuration: beacon-enabled and non-beacon-
enabled networks. In the first network type, coordinators
periodically transmit beacons. The time between beacons is divided
in three main parts: the Contention Access Period (CAP), the
Contention Free Period (CFP), and an inactive period. In the first
period, nodes use slotted Carrier Sense Multiple Access with
Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA) for data communication. In the second
one, a TDMA scheme controls medium access. During the idle period,
communication does not take place, and thus the inactive period is a
good opportunity for nodes to turn the radio off and save energy.
The coordinator announces in each beacon the list of nodes for which
data will be sent in the subsequent period. Therefore, devices may
remain in sleep mode by default and wake up periodically to listen to
the beacons sent by their coordinator. If a device wants to transmit
data, or learns from a beacon that it is an intended destination,
then it will exchange messages with the coordinator (and thus consume
energy). An underlying assumption is that when a message is sent to
a coordinator, the radio of the coordinator will be ready to receive
the message.
Gomez, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 8352 Energy-Efficient Features for IoT April 2018
The beacon interval and the duration of the active portion of the
beacon interval (i.e., the CAP and the CFP), and thus the duty cycle,
can be configured. The parameters that control these times are
called macBeaconOrder and macSuperframeOrder, respectively. As an
example, when IEEE 802.15.4 [IEEE802.15.4] operates in the 2.4 GHz
PHY, both times can be (independently) set to values in the range
between 15.36 ms and 251.6 s.
In the beaconless mode, nodes use unslotted CSMA/CA for data
transmission. The device may be in sleep mode by default and may
activate its radio to either i) request to the coordinator whether
there is pending data for the device, or to ii) transmit data to the
coordinator. The wake-up pattern of the device, if any, is out of
the scope of IEEE 802.15.4 [IEEE802.15.4].
Communication between the two ends of an IEEE 802.15.4 [IEEE802.15.4]
link may also take place in a peer-to-peer configuration, whereby
both link ends assume the same role. In this case, data transmission
can happen at any moment. Nodes must have their radio in receive
mode and be ready to listen to the medium by default (which for
battery-enabled nodes may lead to a quick battery depletion) or apply
synchronization techniques. The latter are out of the scope of IEEE
802.15.4 [IEEE802.15.4].
The main MAC layer IEEE 802.15.4 [IEEE802.15.4] amendment to date is
IEEE 802.15.4e. This amendment includes various new MAC layer modes,
some of which include mechanisms for low energy consumption. Among
these, the Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) is an outstanding mode
that offers robust features for industrial environments, among
others. In order to provide the functionality needed to enable IPv6
over TSCH, the 6TiSCH Working Group was created. TSCH is based on a
TDMA schedule whereby a set of timeslots are used for frame
transmission and reception, and other timeslots are unscheduled. The
latter timeslots may be used by a dynamic scheduling mechanism,
otherwise, nodes may keep the radio off during the unscheduled
timeslots, thus saving energy. The minimal schedule configuration
specified in [RFC8180] comprises 101 timeslots; 95 of these timeslots
are unscheduled and the timeslot duration is 15 ms.
The previously mentioned CSL and RIT are also 802.15.4e modes
designed for low energy.
3.6.4. Power Save Services in DECT ULE
DECT Ultra Low Energy (DECT ULE) is a wireless technology building on
the key fundamentals of traditional DECT / Cordless Advanced
Technology - internet and quality (CAT-iq) [EN300] but with specific
changes to significantly reduce the power consumption at the expense
Gomez, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 8352 Energy-Efficient Features for IoT April 2018
of data throughput [TS102]. DECT ULE devices typically operate on
special power-optimized silicon but can connect to a DECT Gateway
supporting traditional DECT/CAT-iq for cordless telephony and data as
well as the DECT ULE extensions. IPv6 can be run over DECT ULE by
using a 6LoWPAN variant [RFC8105].
DECT defines two major roles: the Portable Part (PP) is the power
constrained device while the Fixed Part (FP) is the Gateway or base
station in a star topology. Because TDMA/FDMA and Time-Division
Duplex (TDD) using dynamic channel allocation for interference, DECT
operates in license-free and reserved frequency bands. It provides
good indoor (~50 m) and outdoor (~300 m) coverage. It uses a frame
length of 10 ms divided into 24 timeslots, and it supports
connection-oriented packet data and connection-less services.
The FP usually transmits a so-called dummy bearer (beacon) that is
used to broadcast synchronization, system, and paging information.
The slot/carrier position of this dummy bearer can automatically be
reallocated in order to avoid mutual interference with other DECT
signals.
At the MAC level, DECT ULE communications between FP and PP are
initiated by the PP. An FP can initiate communication indirectly by
sending a paging signal to a PP. The PP determines the timeslot and
frequency in which the communication between FP and PP takes place.
The PP verifies the radio timeslot/frequency position is unoccupied
before it initiates its transmitter. An access-request message,
which usually carries data, is sent to the FP. The FP sends a
confirm message, which also may carry data. More data can be sent in
subsequent frames. A MAC-level automatic retransmission scheme
significantly improves the reliability of data transfer. A
segmentation and reassembly scheme supports transfer of larger,
higher-layer Service Data Units (SDUs) and provides data integrity
checks. The DECT ULE packet data service ensures data integrity,
proper sequencing, and duplicate protection but not guaranteed
delivery. Higher-layer protocols have to take this into
consideration.
The FP may send paging information to PPs to trigger connection setup
and indicate the required service type. The interval between paging
information to a specific PP can be defined in the range of 10 ms to
327 s. The PP may enter sleep mode to save power. The listening
interval is defined by the PP application. For short sleep intervals
(below ~10 seconds), the PP may be able to retain synchronization to
the FP dummy bearer and only turn on the receiver during the expected
timeslot. For longer sleep intervals, the PP can't keep
synchronization and has to search for, and resynchronize to, the FP
dummy bearer. Hence, longer sleep intervals reduce the average
Gomez, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 8352 Energy-Efficient Features for IoT April 2018
energy consumption but add an energy consumption penalty for
acquiring synchronization to the FP dummy bearer. The PP can obtain
all information to determine paging and acquire synchronization
information in a single reception of one full timeslot.
Packet data latency is normally 30 ms for short packets (below or
equal to 32 octets), however, if retry and back-off scenarios occur,
the latency is increased. The latency can actually be reduced to
about 10 ms by doing energy consuming Received Signal Strength
Indication (RSSI) scanning in advance. In the direction from FP to
PP, the latency is usually increased by the used paging interval and
the sleep interval. The MAC layer can piggyback commands to improve
efficiency (reduce latency) of higher-layer protocols. Such commands
can instruct the PP to initiate a new packet transfer in N frames
without the need for resynchronization and can listen to paging or
instruct the PP to stay in a higher duty-cycle paging detection mode.
The DECT ULE technology allows a per-PP configuration of paging
interval, MTU size, reassembly window size, and higher-layer service
negotiation and protocol.
4. IP Adaptation and Transport Layer
6LoWPAN provides an adaptation layer designed to support IPv6 over
IEEE 802.15.4 [IEEE802.15.4]. 6LoWPAN affects the energy-efficiency
problem in three aspects, as follows.
First, 6LoWPAN provides one fragmentation and reassembly mechanism,
which is aimed at solving the packet size issue in IPv6 and could
also affect energy efficiency. IPv6 requires that every link in the
Internet have an MTU of 1280 octets or greater. On any link that
cannot convey a 1280-octet packet in one piece, link-specific
fragmentation and reassembly must be provided at a layer below IPv6
[RFC8200]. 6LoWPAN provides fragmentation and reassembly below the
IP layer to solve the problem. One of the benefits from placing
fragmentation at a lower layer such as the 6LoWPAN layer is that it
can avoid the presence of more IP headers because fragmentation at
the IP layer will produce more IP packets, each one carrying its own
IP header. However, performance can be severely affected if, after
IP layer fragmentation, then 6LoWPAN fragmentation happens as well
(e.g., when the upper layer is not aware of the existence of the
fragmentation at the 6LoWPAN layer). One solution is to require that
the higher layers have an awareness of the lower-layer features and
generate small enough packets to avoid fragmentation. In this
regard, the Block option in CoAP can be useful when CoAP is used at
the application layer [RFC7959].
Gomez, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 8352 Energy-Efficient Features for IoT April 2018
Secondly, 6LoWPAN swaps computing with communication. 6LoWPAN applies
compression of the IPv6 header. Subject to the packet size limit of
IEEE 802.15.4 [IEEE802.15.4], a 40-octet-long IPv6 header and an 8 or
20-octet-long UDP and TCP header will consume even more packet space
than the data itself. 6LoWPAN provides IPv6 and UDP header
compression at the adaptation layer. Therefore, a lower amount of
data will be handled by the lower layers, whereas both the sender and
receiver will spend more computing power on the compression and
decompression of the packets over the air. Compression can also be
performed at higher layers (see Section 6.4).
Finally, the 6LoWPAN Working Group developed the energy-efficient
Neighbor Discovery called 6LoWPAN-ND, which is an energy-efficient
replacement of the IPv6 ND in constrained environments. IPv6
Neighbor Discovery was not designed for non-transitive wireless
links, as its heavy use of multicast makes it inefficient and
sometimes impractical in a low-power and lossy network. 6LoWPAN-ND
describes simple optimizations to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, its
addressing mechanisms, and duplicate address detection for Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Networks and similar networks. However,
6LoWPAN-ND does not modify Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD)
timeouts, which are very short (by default three transmissions spaced
1 second apart). NUD timeout settings should be tuned to take into
account the latency that may be introduced by duty-cycled mechanisms
at the link layer or the alternative, less impatient NUD algorithms
should be considered [RFC7048].
IPv6 underlies the higher-layer protocols, including both TCP/UDP
transport and applications. By design, the higher-layer protocols do
not typically have specific information about the lower layers and
thus cannot solve the energy-efficiency problem.
The network stack can be designed to save computing power. For
example, the Contiki implementation has multiple cross-layer
optimizations for buffers and energy management, e.g., the computing
and validation of UDP/TCP checksums without the need of reading IP
headers from a different layer. These optimizations are software
implementation techniques and are out of the scope of the IETF and
the LWIG Working Group.
5. Routing Protocols
RPL [RFC6550] is a routing protocol designed by the IETF for
constrained environments. RPL exchanges messages periodically and
keeps routing states for each destination. RPL is optimized for the
many-to-one communication pattern (where network nodes primarily send
data towards the border router) but has provisions for any-to-any
routing as well.
Gomez, et al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 8352 Energy-Efficient Features for IoT April 2018
The authors of the Powertrace tool [Powertrace] studied the power
profile of RPL. Their analysis divides the routing protocol into
control and data traffic. The control plane carries ICMP messages to
establish and maintain the routing states. The data plane carries
any application that uses RPL for routing packets. The study has
shown that the power consumption of the control traffic goes down
over time in a relatively stable network. The study also reflects
that the routing protocol should keep the control traffic as low as
possible to make it energy friendly. The amount of RPL control
traffic can be tuned by setting the Trickle [RFC6206] algorithm
parameters (i.e., Imin, Imax, and k) to appropriate values. However,
there exists a trade-off between energy consumption and other
performance parameters such as network convergence time and
robustness.
RFC 6551 [RFC6551] defines routing metrics and constraints to be used
by RPL in route computation. Among others, RFC 6551 specifies a Node
Energy object that allows to provide information related to node
energy, such as the energy source type or the estimated percentage of
remaining energy. Appropriate use of energy-based routing metrics
may help to balance energy consumption of network nodes, minimize
network partitioning, and increase network lifetime.
6. Application Layer
6.1. Energy-Efficient Features in CoAP
CoAP [RFC7252] is designed as a RESTful application protocol that
connects the services of smart devices to the World Wide Web. CoAP
is not a chatty protocol. It provides basic communication services
such as service discovery and GET/POST/PUT/DELETE methods with a
binary header.
Energy efficiency is part of the CoAP protocol design. CoAP uses a
fixed-length binary header of only four bytes that may be followed by
binary options. To reduce regular and frequent queries of the
resources, CoAP provides an observe mode in which the requester
registers its interest of a certain resource and the responder will
report the value whenever it was updated. This reduces the request/
response round trips while keeping information exchange an ubiquitous
service; an energy-constrained server can remain in sleep mode during
the period between observe notification transmissions.
Furthermore, [RFC7252] defines CoAP proxies that can cache resource
representations previously provided by sleepy CoAP servers. The
proxies themselves may respond to client requests if the
Gomez, et al. Informational [Page 16]
RFC 8352 Energy-Efficient Features for IoT April 2018
corresponding server is sleeping and the resource representation is
recent enough. Otherwise, a proxy may attempt to obtain the resource
from the sleepy server.
CoAP proxy and cache functionality may also be used to perform data
aggregation. This technique allows a node to receive data messages
(e.g., carrying sensor readings) from other nodes in the network,
perform an operation based on the content in those messages, and
transmit the result of the operation. Such operation may simply be
intended to use one packet to carry the readings transported in
several packets (which reduces header and transmission overhead), or
it may be a more sophisticated operation, possibly based on
mathematical, logical, or filtering principles (which reduces the
payload size to be transmitted).
6.2. Sleepy Node Support
Beyond these features of CoAP, there have been a number of proposals
to further support sleepy nodes at the application layer by
leveraging CoAP mechanisms. A good summary of such proposals can be
found in [SLEEPY-DEVICES], while an example application (in the
context of illustrating several security mechanisms) in a scenario
with sleepy devices has been described [CRYPTO-SENSORS]. Approaches
to support sleepy nodes include exploiting the use of proxies,
leveraging the resource directory [CoRE-RD], or signaling when a node
is awake to the interested nodes. Recent work defines publish-
subscribe and message queuing extensions to CoAP and the resource
directory in order to support devices that spend most of their time
asleep [CoAP-BROKER]. Notably, this work has been adopted by the
CoRE Working Group.
In addition to the work within the scope of CoAP to support sleepy
nodes, other specifications define application-layer functionality
for the same purpose. The Lightweight Machine-to-Machine (LwM2M)
specification from the Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) defines a queue
mode whereby an LwM2M Server queues requests to an LwM2M Client until
the latter (which may often stay in sleep mode) is online. LwM2M
functionality operates on top of CoAP.
oneM2M defines a CoAP binding with an application-layer mechanism for
sleepy nodes [oneM2M].
6.3. CoAP Timers
CoAP offers mechanisms for reliable communication between two CoAP
endpoints. A CoAP message may be signaled as a confirmable (CON)
message, and an acknowledgment (ACK) is issued by the receiver if the
CON message is correctly received. The sender starts a
Gomez, et al. Informational [Page 17]
RFC 8352 Energy-Efficient Features for IoT April 2018
Retransmission Timeout (RTO) for every CON message sent. The initial
RTO value is chosen randomly between 2 and 3 s. If an RTO expires,
the new RTO value is doubled (unless a limit on the number of
retransmissions has been reached). Since duty cycling at the link
layer may lead to long latency (i.e., even greater than the initial
RTO value), CoAP RTO parameters should be tuned accordingly in order
to avoid spurious RTOs that would unnecessarily waste node energy and
other resources. On the other hand, note that CoAP can also run on
top of TCP [RFC8323]. In that case, similar guidance applies to TCP
timers, albeit with greater motivation to carefully configure TCP RTO
parameters since [RFC6298] reduced the default initial TCP RTO to 1
second, which may interact more negatively with duty-cycled links
than default CoAP RTO values.
6.4. Data Compression
Another method intended to reduce the size of the data units to be
communicated in constrained-node networks is data compression, which
allows to encode data using fewer bits than the original data
representation. Data compression is more efficient at higher layers,
particularly before encryption is used. In fact, encryption
mechanisms may generate an output that does not contain redundancy,
making it almost impossible to reduce the data representation size.
In CoAP, messages may be encrypted by using Datagram Transport Layer
Security (DTLS) or TLS when CoAP over TCP is used, which is the
default mechanism for securing CoAP exchanges.
7. Summary and Conclusions
We summarize the key takeaways of this document:
a. Internet protocols designed by the IETF can be considered the
customer of the lower layers (PHY, MAC, and duty cycling). To
reduce power consumption, it is recommended that Layer 3 designs
should operate based on awareness of lower-level parameters
rather than treating the lower layer as a black box (see Sections
4, 5, and 6).
b. It is always useful to compress the protocol headers in order to
reduce the transmission/reception power. This design principle
has been employed by many protocols in the 6lo and CoRE Working
Groups (see Sections 4 and 6).
c. Broadcast and non-synchronized transmissions consume more than
other TX/RX operations. If protocols must use these ways to
collect information, reduction of their usage by aggregating
similar messages together will be helpful in saving power (see
Sections 2 and 6.1).
Gomez, et al. Informational [Page 18]
RFC 8352 Energy-Efficient Features for IoT April 2018
d. Saving power by sleeping as much as possible is used widely
(Section 3).
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
9. Security Considerations
This document discusses energy-efficient protocol design and does not
incur any changes or challenges on security issues besides what the
protocol specifications have analyzed.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[Bluetooth42]
Bluetooth Special Interest Group, "Core Version 4.2",
available from "Legacy Core Specifications", December
2014, <https://www.bluetooth.com/specifications/
bluetooth-core-specification/legacy-specifications>.
[EN300] ETSI, "Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications
(DECT); Common Interface (CI); Part 1: Overview", ETSI EN
300 175-1 V2.6.1, July 2015,
<https://www.etsi.org/deliver/
etsi_en/300100_300199/30017501/02.06.01_60/
en_30017501v020601p.pdf>.
[G9959] ITU-T, "Short range narrow-band digital radiocommunication
transceivers - PHY, MAC, SAR and LLC layer
specifications", ITU-T Recommendation G.9959, January
2015, <http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.9959>.
[IEEE802.11]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Information technology--
Telecommunications and information exchange between
systems Local and metropolitan area networks--Specific
requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control
(MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications",
IEEE 802.11, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7786995,
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7786995/versions>.
Gomez, et al. Informational [Page 19]
RFC 8352 Energy-Efficient Features for IoT April 2018
[IEEE802.15.4]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks",
IEEE 802.15.4, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7460875,
<https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/
standard/802.15.4-2015.html>.
[MSTP] ANSI/ASHRAE, "Addenda: BACnet -- A Data Communication
Protocol for Building Automation and Control Networks
ANSI/ASHRAE Addenda an, at, au, av, aw, ax, and az to
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 135-2012", July 2014,
<https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/standards-and-
guidelines/standards-addenda/
addenda-to-standard-135-2012>.
[NFC] NFC Forum, "NFC Logical Link Control Protocol", Technical
Specification, Version 1.3, March 2016.
[oneM2M] oneM2M, "oneM2M - Published Specifications",
<http://www.onem2m.org/technical/published-documents>.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.
[RFC6206] Levis, P., Clausen, T., Hui, J., Gnawali, O., and J. Ko,
"The Trickle Algorithm", RFC 6206, DOI 10.17487/RFC6206,
March 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6206>.
[RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.
[RFC6298] Paxson, V., Allman, M., Chu, J., and M. Sargent,
"Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer", RFC 6298,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6298, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6298>.
[RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., 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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.
Gomez, et al. Informational [Page 20]
RFC 8352 Energy-Efficient Features for IoT April 2018
[RFC6551] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Kim, M., Ed., Pister, K., Dejean, N.,
and D. Barthel, "Routing Metrics Used for Path Calculation
in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6551,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6551, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6551>.
[RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C.
Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over
Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)",
RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>.
[RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
[RFC7668] Nieminen, J., Savolainen, T., Isomaki, M., Patil, B.,
Shelby, Z., and C. Gomez, "IPv6 over BLUETOOTH(R) Low
Energy", RFC 7668, DOI 10.17487/RFC7668, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7668>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[TS102] ETSI, "Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications
(DECT); Ultra Low Energy (ULE); Machine to Machine
Communications; Part 2: Home Automation Network (phase 2",
ETSI TS 102 939-2 V1.1.1, March 2015,
<https://www.etsi.org/deliver/
etsi_ts/102900_102999/10293902/01.01.01_60/
ts_10293902v010101p.pdf>.
Gomez, et al. Informational [Page 21]
RFC 8352 Energy-Efficient Features for IoT April 2018
10.2. Informative References
[AN079] Kim, C., "Measuring Power Consumption of CC2530 With
Z-Stack", Application Note AN079, SWRA292, September 2012,
<http://www.ti.com/lit/an/swra292/swra292.pdf>.
[ARCH-6TiSCH]
Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
of IEEE 802.15.4", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-6tisch-
architecture-13, November 2017.
[CLASS1-CoAP]
Kovatsch, M., "Implementing CoAP for Class 1 Devices",
Work in Progress, draft-kovatsch-lwig-class1-coap-00,
October 2012.
[CNN-TERMS]
Bormann, C., Ersue, M., Keranen, A., and C. Gomez,
"Terminology for Constrained-Node Networks", Work in
Progress, draft-bormann-lwig-7228bis-02, October 2017.
[CoAP-BROKER]
Koster, M., Keranen, A., and J. Jimenez, "Publish-
Subscribe Broker for the Constrained Application Protocol
(CoAP)", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-core-coap-pubsub-04,
March 2018.
[ContikiMAC]
Dunkels, A., "The ContikiMAC Radio Duty Cycling Protocol",
SICS Technical Report T2011:13, December 2011,
<http://soda.swedishict.se/5128/>.
[CoRE-RD] Shelby, Z., Koster, M., Bormann, C., Stok, P., and C.
Amsuess, Ed., "CoRE Resource Directory", Work in
Progress, draft-ietf-core-resource-directory-13, March
2018.
[CRYPTO-SENSORS]
Sethi, M., Arkko, J., Keranen, A., and H. Back, "Practical
Considerations and Implementation Experiences in Securing
Smart Object Networks", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-lwig-
crypto-sensors-06, February 2018.
[Powertrace]
Dunkels, A., Eriksson, J., Finne, N., and N. Tsiftes,
"Powertrace: Network-level Power Profiling for Low-power
Wireless Networks", SICS Technical Report T2011:05, March
2011, <http://soda.swedishict.se/4112/>.
Gomez, et al. Informational [Page 22]
RFC 8352 Energy-Efficient Features for IoT April 2018
[RFC7048] Nordmark, E. and I. Gashinsky, "Neighbor Unreachability
Detection Is Too Impatient", RFC 7048,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7048, January 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7048>.
[RFC7959] Bormann, C. and Z. Shelby, Ed., "Block-Wise Transfers in
the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7959,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7959, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7959>.
[RFC8105] Mariager, P., Petersen, J., Ed., Shelby, Z., Van de Logt,
M., and D. Barthel, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over
Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) Ultra
Low Energy (ULE)", RFC 8105, DOI 10.17487/RFC8105, May
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8105>.
[RFC8180] Vilajosana, X., Ed., Pister, K., and T. Watteyne, "Minimal
IPv6 over the TSCH Mode of IEEE 802.15.4e (6TiSCH)
Configuration", BCP 210, RFC 8180, DOI 10.17487/RFC8180,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8180>.
[RFC8323] Bormann, C., Lemay, S., Tschofenig, H., Hartke, K.,
Silverajan, B., and B. Raymor, Ed., "CoAP (Constrained
Application Protocol) over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets",
RFC 8323, DOI 10.17487/RFC8323, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8323>.
[SLEEPY-DEVICES]
Rahman, A., "Sleepy Devices: Do we need to Support them in
CORE?", Work in Progress, draft-rahman-core-sleepy-nodes-
do-we-need-01, February 2014.
Acknowledgments
Carles Gomez has been supported by the Spanish Government, FEDER, and
the ERDF through projects TEC2012-32531 and TEC2016-79988-P.
The authors would like to give thanks for the review and feedback
from a number of experts in this area: Carsten Bormann, Ari Keranen,
Hannes Tschofenig, Dominique Barthel, Bernie Volz, and Charlie
Perkins.
The text of this document was improved based on an IESG document
editing session during IETF 87. Thanks to Ted Lemon and Joel Jaeggli
for initiating and facilitating this editing session.
Gomez, et al. Informational [Page 23]
RFC 8352 Energy-Efficient Features for IoT April 2018
Contributors
Jens T. Petersen, RTX, contributed the section on power save services
in DECT ULE.
Authors' Addresses
Carles Gomez
Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya
C/Esteve Terradas, 7
Castelldefels 08860
Spain
Email: carlesgo@entel.upc.edu
Matthias Kovatsch
ETH Zurich
Universitaetstrasse 6
Zurich, CH-8092
Switzerland
Email: ietf@kovatsch.net
Hui Tian
China Academy of Telecommunication Research
Huayuanbeilu No. 52
Beijing, Haidian District 100191
China
Email: tianhui@ritt.cn
Zhen Cao (editor)
Huawei Technologies
China
Email: zhencao.ietf@gmail.com
Gomez, et al. Informational [Page 24]