Is there a reason that this draft restricts itself to a subset of the
currently defined PHYs in 802.15.4?
As written, it refers only to the DSSS PHYs. There are currently 2
additional PHYs defined in the standard (802.15.4a-2007), and there are two
more amendments nearing completion that define additional PHYs. I don't see
any applications in these scenarios that require this restriction. Asset
tracking, for example, is a likely application of the UWB PHYs (due to
precision ranging, thus location, capability :-). The other PHYs have
characteristics useful in some of these scenarios also. Is there a reason
for limiting LoWPAN application to specific PHYs or is this just out of
date text?
Also, a typo in References [3]: "802.15.4-2006, October 2003" of course
15.4-2006 was not published in 2003 :0). 802.15.4-2006 alone is not the
current version of the standard (802.15.4a-2007 was approved early 2007). A
safer thing is to site "802.15.4-2006 as amended" unless there is some
reason to be restrictive (in which case that reason should be explained in
the text).
-Ben
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carles Gomez Montenegro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Geoff Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Use Cases Draft ready as WG document?
Hi all,
I am also in favor.
Carles
Hi Geoff,
As you mentioned, the Use Cases document has been stable for quite
some time, and it has sparked a lot of interest.
I am therefore "in favor of" Working Group adoption.
Greetings,
Dominik
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 7:02 AM, Geoff Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
JP,
That was a mistake. I followed it up with a message to the list
asking
for responses on whether the document should become a WG doc.
Please folks on the 6lowpan list respond and let us know if you think
the
Use Case document is ready to become a WG draft.
geoff
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 6:08 AM, JP Vasseur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Geoff,
In another email you wrote:
"
Jonathan please submit your draft draft-hui-6lowpan-hc-01
Eunsook please also submit your draft draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios-03"
Is the second ID adopted as a WG (since below you asked for feed-back)
?
Thanks.
JP.
On 9/22/08 5:52 AM, "Geoff Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The document draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios-03 has been stable for some
time now and this is a chartered item.
Are you "in favor of" or "opposed to" adopting
draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios-03
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios-03.txt)
as a 6lowpan Working Group Document?
Thanks,
geoff
________________________________
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
