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 than projected. How many AM IDs do > > the net2 protocols currently need and can we estimate the growth in > > the protocol space over the next few years based on past trends? > > > > The idea was that since net2 is technically responsible for protocols > sitting on top of AM, it's the WG responsible for preventing confusion and > collisions in the AM identifier space. So really, the way to see this is > "protocols in the TinyOS tree use this range." >
To answer Matt's question, right now we need about ten IDs. We might need five more next year. Do you foresee 0-127 being inadequate for applications and protocols not provided in the TinyOS distribution? One other issue is protocols in contrib - we can suggest that those also occupy a certain id range, perhaps a subset of the range reserved by net2. Although there will be no mechanism to patrol those contrib protocols to conflict each other, but at least the applications will know what range is safe for them. - om_p _______________________________________________ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
