On Mar 7, 2011, at 23:46, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Now we have LWIP which will on similar issues. In view of that I am not sure > if this is still needed.
Citing from a random draft LWIG charter (datatracker doesn't seem to have a final one yet): > The purpose of the LWIG working group is to collect experiences from > existing small IP stacks with regards to protocol implementation > techniques and other details that have been useful in deployments. The > group shall focus only on techniques that have been used in actual > implementations and do not impact interoperability with other devices. > The techniques shall also not affect conformance to the relevant > specifications. The output of this work is a document that describes > implementation techniques for reducing complexity, memory footprint, or > power usage. The main focus is in the IPv4, IPv6, UDP, TCP, ICMPv4/v6, > MLD/IGMP, ND, DHCPv4/v6, IPsec, 6LOWPAN, and RPL protocols. So the LWIG output is intended to be descriptive, about implementation techniques, not affecting interoperability. The 6LoWPAN implementers guide I started to write explains how to properly use the 6LoWPAN protocols, in a way that is intended to be more prescriptive than descriptive, very much impacting (i.e., improving) interoperability, and potentially ultimately leading to revised versions of the specifications. Again, cf. RFC 4815 for an example for where this can lead. While it is possible there will be some overlap in the fringe areas between the two, with a little bit of forethought that can be controlled. And, yes, I'd expect LWIG to be a working group that we want to closely collaborate with, both with respect to this guide and with respect to the other 6LoWPAN documents. Gruesse, Carsten _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
