Tero Kivinen <[email protected]> wrote: >> Given that context can you please provide solid and objective >> arguments on why the specification of a the profile of IPv6 on BTLE is >> an standard and what we define in minimal (the 15.4e profile) it is >> not?
> Does minimal change anything in 802.15.4? I.e. is there something there
> that is not already defined in 802.15.4 when suitable options of the
> 802.15.4 is selected?
> I.e. can someone take 802.15.4 and implement it, picking parameters
> until he get the same parameters specified in the minimal and then
> implement minimal without ever reading it.
(I think you write 802.15.4 here rather than 15.4e, because as of now, the
documents are one)
> My understanding is that yes, 802.15.4 complient implementation which
> implements just what is already defined in the 802.15.4 can also be
> complient with minimal, if it selects suitable options.
> This would make it profile instead of new protocol.
I think that something is a "protocol" (and therefore a "new" protocol), if
there is some interaction in which decisions occur. A profile has no
decisions, because they are all setup in advance in the document.
Do you agree?
I'm asking because it would be good to agree on what is a "new protocol",
before we decide if minimal is new or not.
> When you start to implement things on top of that, for example the key
> management or joining processes, then those parts are outside the scope
> of 802.15.4 and you have to implement something not mentioned there,
> then you are making new protocol.
> On the other hand I do not think there is real difference between those
> two, i.e. it does not matter whether it is profile or whether it is new
> protocol for the IETF process point of view.
Would a profile = BCP?
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
