Timothy J. Salo wrote:
o They don't interoperate. Again, is system-level interoperability one of our objectives? If it isn't, I suggest we simply say so.
Hasn't the IETF traditionally concerned itself with interoperability at L3 and above? 802.15.4 links with different configurations are logically different links as stated in the architecture ID. I don't think this WG should be worried about interoperability between arbitrary link layers simply because they utilize a radio with 'IEEE 802.15.4' in its datasheet. Note that just because a radio may be IEEE 802.15.4 compliant, doesn't mean it can communicate with any arbitrary IEEE 802.15.4 radio. There may be differences in frequency (2.4 GHz, 916 MHz, 868 MHz), modulation (BPSK, ASK, O-QPSK), baudrate (20, 100, 250 kbps). Then there's IEEE 802.15.4-2006 vs. 802.15.4a vs. the currently-in-progress 802.15.4e. I'd be surprised if the energy-management mechanisms in 802.15.4-2006 are at all compatible with 802.15.4e. Note that there are commonalities in all of this (addressing, frame format, etc). I don't think it is in the best interest of this WG to pick a single slice and say we will develop solutions that address only that one slice.
-- Jonathan Hui _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
