On Mar 14, 2018 5:24 PM, "Thiago Macieira" <thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 March 2018 14:23:58 PDT Gregg Reynolds wrote: > In fact I'll go further: it is a strategic blunder to crown IPv6 as the > winner of the networking protocol layer wars. It's only one of many. (I'm > looking at you, Bluetooth 5.; and there's nothing wrong with IPv4 if that's > what you need.) The real value of OCF, AFAIK, is at the application layer: > CRUDN messaging and the data model. You do realise Bluetooth 5 did standardise IPv6-over-Bluetooth too, right? No (for the record). No, afaik, those are completely separate issues. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7668. IPv6 Bluetooth preceded bt5. Bt5 and bt over ipv6 are completely orthogonal, afaik. It's the same protocol as IPv6 over Low-power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPAN) over a different radio interface. You're also confusing two layers I don't think I am confusing layers. I think OCF is conflating layers. We require IPv6 for the Layer 3 An application layer cannot (should not) require lower levels. where your only other show is IPv4 (other protocols are no longer used and belong in a museum). Bluetooth is Layer 1(?) What is layer 1? And fwiw I am not just arguing. I think this is a real "issue". You could argue about non-IP Bluetooth -- that is, Bluetooth GATT. We do some early support for that in IoTivity, but it's not standardised. The problem of communication is one, but also because the target type of device where that would make sense is quite possibly too small to run even IoTivity Constrained. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
