Tom - at the risk of appearing dense, I just don't get it.
If minimal is expected to be of use for more than a year or two, then it
needs to
stay constant, like 802.11b (or USB, or UDP, or ...). You don't
integrate new
ideas by changing the underlying spec otherwise there is no interop.
You integrate
new ideas by adding (802.11g, USB2.0, TCP, ...), but by saying "now when
we write
'802.11b' on the outside of the box, it means OFDM not DSSS".
How can you call something a standard if it can change and break interop
at any time?
With regard to silicon vendors, either we are successful with 6tisch and it
becomes widely adopted outside of the existing industrial process
automation market,
or we fail and it isn't. If we're successful, silicon vendors will
include 4e capability in
all chips going forward until the market stops buying it (just like 11b
capability is still
present in chips that speak much more advanced protocols). If we fail
at getting
adoption now, then it doesn't matter what silicon vendors do in the future.
ksjp
On 5/1/2015 8:18 AM, Tom Phinney wrote:
Hi all,
For me, resolution of point 2) depends on how long we expect "minimal"
to be of use. In the short term, reference to 802.15.4e makes sense.
However, if "minimal" is expected to be of use for more than a year or
two, then it needs to be written in a way that tracks the most
recently published IEEE 802.15.4 standard, as that is the one for
which chip vendors will invest.
In the short term, many available chips will support 802.15.4-2011 and
802.15.4e-2012, but in the future that support, for low-cost low-power
high-capability SoC IoT devices, will track the most-recent version of
IEEE 802.15.4.
Industrial IoT is not a large enough sub-market to drive variance from
the greater IoT market. Thus it is foolish (in my opinion) to insist
on adherence to what the dominant market will consider an obsolete spec.
-Tom
=====
On 2015.05.01 08:05, Qin Wang wrote:
Hi Pascal,
After the discussion in the thread "Removing the "e" in the charter",
do you still ask agreement about solution on the second point?
Personally, I prefer the text suggested by Pat, because it can
decouple 6TiSCH from IEEE802.15.4 MAC. But, if the minimal draft is
not final standard, I will agree the current solution for point 2.
Thanks
Qin
On Friday, May 1, 2015 7:21 AM, Thomas Watteyne
<[email protected]> wrote:
Pascal,
+1 on both points
Thomas
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear all :
After the interim call on Friday , we reviewed the discussions on
minimal and found that we are ready to ship the draft to the IESG.
The only questions left are:
1) should we provide a default value for K1 in the security section?
2) which IEEE document should the spec reference?
For 1) it was suggested that it would help interop if we did. So
the proposal on the table is to add a well-known key as a default
that can be modified at commissioning time.
For 2) the spec makes explicit references deep into 802.15.4e so
the proposal on the table is to maintain the reference to
802.15.4e as it stands now.
We are now calling for consensus on these 2 points. If you object
please let us know and we’ll talk. We’ll conclude this call next
Friday.
Cheers,
Pascal
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
