The charter is presumably a draft, not a consensus. The numbers in the
charter seem to lack rigorous justification, so I'm not comfortable
with them as they stand. So, yes, I'm suggesting to either drop the
numbers or make them more useful. In addition, memory size arguments
are not terribly helpful unless each proposal will have a canonical
implementation in the I-D. At least from my experience, people are
very bad at estimating implementation complexity, except that one's
own proposal by definition has lower complexity than any competing
proposals.
Henning
On Nov 10, 2009, at 6:13 PM, Richard Kelsey wrote:
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:13:24 -0800
From: Kris Pister <[email protected]>
I think that today's things are being designed with
wonderful chips like your Ember EM351 and EM357 which
have 128kB and 192kB of flash and lots of RAM; like the
Jennic JN5148, the Freescale MC13224, the Dust DN2510.
They can run IP, they will run IP, and in many cases they
do run IP.
Kris,
Their wonderfulness aside, those chips are not what the
6lowpan charter describes. Yes, I agree that rechartering
for bigger platforms would make our job easier, and could
reduce the number of new protocols needed. I am not arguing
for or against it, just asking you if you are proposing that
we amend the charter. If not, then we should use the specs
that it has.
-Richard Kelsey
_______________________________________________
6lowapp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
