On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Philip Levis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 29, 2008, at 7:41 PM, Matt Welsh wrote:
This seems like an unnecessarily large swath of the AM address space
for one small working group. It would be better to justify this in
terms of your actual needs, rather
That makes a lot more sense to me than just protocols developed by
net2. As Om said you only need about 15-20 IDs, but you're proposing
to claim 128. Seems like a mismatch.
Here's a proposal. As TinyOS matures it's clear that we need some way
to resolve AM ID space conflicts. One approach
On Apr 30, 2008, at 6:02 AM, Matt Welsh wrote:
That makes a lot more sense to me than just protocols developed by
net2. As Om said you only need about 15-20 IDs, but you're
proposing to claim 128. Seems like a mismatch.
Here's a proposal. As TinyOS matures it's clear that we need some
I think we're on the same page here but there are some details to work
out.
Anything in tos could be assigned an AM ID range by the net2 WG. The
question is how do things move from contrib, apps, etc. to tos?
An example might be a new timesync protocol that someone develops and
wants to
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Matt Welsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we're on the same page here but there are some details to work
out.
Anything in tos could be assigned an AM ID range by the net2 WG. The
question is how do things move from contrib, apps, etc. to tos?
An example
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Vlado Handziski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Matt Welsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we're on the same page here but there are some details to work
out.
Anything in tos could be assigned an AM ID range by the net2 WG. The
On Apr 30, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Omprakash Gnawali wrote:
In summary, at least until now, net2's policy has been to put the TEP
in the standards track and software in the release track only through
membership in the group. For TEP, I can see the value of being more
flexible with this policy
OK, this is fine enough, though I guess it means that the net2 WG is
the gatekeeper for all protocols in TinyOS. It wasn't clear to me that
this was the case...
For the protocols that are distributed with the core (lib/net), it is
clear that we want ID allocation and they MUST not conflict.
On Apr 30, 2008, at 3:52 PM, Matt Welsh wrote:
OK, this is fine enough, though I guess it means that the net2 WG is
the gatekeeper for all protocols in TinyOS. It wasn't clear to me
that this was the case...
Well, I'd hope it's not. net2 is responsible for assigning the IDs,
not
This seems like an unnecessarily large swath of the AM address space
for one small working group. It would be better to justify this in
terms of your actual needs, rather than projected. How many AM IDs do
the net2 protocols currently need and can we estimate the growth in
the protocol
On Apr 29, 2008, at 7:41 PM, Matt Welsh wrote:
This seems like an unnecessarily large swath of the AM address space
for one small working group. It would be better to justify this in
terms of your actual needs, rather than projected. How many AM IDs do
the net2 protocols currently need and
11 matches
Mail list logo
