From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:12:33 -0500
The charter is presumably a draft, not a consensus.
I've limited the cc: list to 6lowpan, which does have
a non-draft charter.
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.
I don't know, but I think that they were chosen because
6lowpan-like non-IETF protocols are currently being used on
such devices.
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.
Yes, memory limitations are fuzzy at best, but we
have to say something. Hardware limitations are a
key part of 6lowpan requirements.
-Richard Kelsey
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
