Carsten, I think it's a good concern especially from the implementation prespective. Even it seems not scope of 6lowpan standardization itself, I think we can input this concern to the relevant place, v6ops (IPv6 operations) working group in conjunciton with 6lowpan coordination in my mind.
Anyhow, I'd encourage Ron to continue this thread on this list if we don't see any critical objection. Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park) Mobile Convergence Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carsten Bormann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ron Strich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Carsten Bormann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'6lowpan'" <6lowpan@lists.ietf.org> Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 12:31 AM Subject: Re: [6lowpan] 6lowpan Architecture Questions > Ron, > > good input. > > Let me just pick up on one of these points: > > The IETF is quite wary about "architecture" documents. > > (The OSI reference model is the textbook example here: > ISO did an architecture ["reference model"], and then, only when > defining the protocols, found out that the architecture didn't make > sense. > But it was too late to fix the architecture, so the bad layers limped > on until OSI finally died. > The really funny thing, of course, is that, in 2006, people are > *still* citing the layers of the defunct reference model...) > > In the IETF, we tend to standardize functional components and leave > it to the market how to build "architectures" out of these. > Of course, that is not always possible. > Also, it may be necessary to have an (really: one or more) > architectures in mind when building components. > > So, I'd welcome discussion of architecture(s). I'm just not sure we > actually want to "standardize" them. > > Gruesse, Carsten > > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > 6lowpan@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > > _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list 6lowpan@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
