Zach, Thank you very much for your comment. The issue is already in the issue tracker. #1 is actually for that. We are revising the text. Thanks a lot,
-eunah On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Zach Shelby <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > In Minneapolis, there was another comment that came up (from me, and some > others) which should be added as a ticket. Didn't notice it wasn't there > earlier, sorry. > > -00 of the draft is extremely IEEE 802.15.4 specific. The working group has > moved towards link-layer independence and has accepted that 6lowpan is being > used over other radio technologies in addition to 802.15.4. In fact, the new > HC and ND drafts are already written to be link-layer independent. > > My request is to make this draft more link-layer agnostic. I think it is > fine to use IEEE 802.15.4 as an example, however it should be mentioned and > considered that 6lowpan will be used over other low-power radios which may > have similar characteristics to 802.15.4, but surely not the exact same > mechanisms such as RFD/FFD and superframes. The use of these features in > practice in the industry is also marginal even for 802.15.4. > > On the same note - we need to correct this in RFC4944 as well either through > an update or replacing it. Making it clear to newcomers that 6lowpan is only > for 802.15.4. > > Thanks, > Zach > > Eunsook "Eunah" Kim wrote: >> >> Dear 6LoWPANers, >> >> For revision of the routing requirement documents, please give us your >> comments. >> Currently, we have 4 tickets at issue tracker. >> >> >> (http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/query?component=routing-requirements) >> >> - #1: "Make sure interface to 15.4 is clear". >> One of the comments in Minneapolis >> was whether 6LoWPAN WG is assuming only the 802.15.4 frame format or the >> whole PHY/MAC protocol. >> >> - #2: "Improve discussion of mutual requirements of routing and header >> compression". >> the relation between routing and header compression, contexts, etc >> >> - #3: "Discuss hibernation-induced latency with the latency requirements". >> Latency may be affected by nodes hibernation, depending on the MAC used. >> Other MAC approaches than the legacy 802.15.4 may be used (e.g. TDMA) and >> duty cycling may also affect latency (and many other things). >> >> - #4: "Refine discussion on how MAC-layer ACKs can go into routing". >> There was a comment that 802.15.4 does not protect layer two >> acknowledgments. >> So many systems use data frames for acknowledgements. >> >> >> Please feel free to give us comments on these issues or any other >> issues for the revision. >> >> Greetings, >> -eunah >> _______________________________________________ >> 6lowpan mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > > -- > > Zach Shelby > Head of Research > Sensinode Ltd. > Kidekuja 2 > 88610 Vuokatti > FINLAND > > mobile: +358 40 7796297 > > This e-mail and all attached material are confidential and may contain > legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, > please contact the sender and delete the e-mail from your system without > producing, distributing or retaining copies thereof. > _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
