On Jul 9, 2015, at 02:33, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> If we get rid of the fantasy that there's a single 6LoWPAN network, and that
> all devices can plug into it, then we see that there will be multiple bodies
> like ZigBee IP defining profiles and ensuring connectivity of compliant
> implementations.
I don’t remember ever adopting this fantasy, yet I still have concerns about
proceeding with this draft.
> A device would be designed for one such profile, where the use of either
> legacy mesh or option 1 would be enforced.
I can see this happening under the terms of the current draft. I think it’s
important to consider what “device” likely means in this context. We’re talking
about commodity implementation modules. When you design a finished product, you
choose the commodity implementation module that implements the specific profile
of 6LoWPAN for which it was certified to interoperate.
> Or a device could be compliant with multiple such profiles in which case
> there would be a need for configuration or discovery.
If am deeply skeptical that this assertion will be proven if we proceed with
this draft. I expect it to be much more likely that one or two specific
profiles will be implemented as commodity modules, and devices that use them
will be forced in hardware to use exactly one profile at all times.
—james
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
