Hello, llrp.org is now registered as an organization, with PEN number 29840 .
What that means is that we can build a set of open extensions that we find necessary to make LLRP and LTK really useful. This PEN number can be a common ground for extensions of common utility. As we learn to live with LLRP, we inevitably find deficiencies and sharp edges in the spec. The extension mechanism allows us to fix up some of those issues. But if they are all fixed one-off by particular vendors, then the benefits to RFID users of choosing an open standard is significantly diminished. So I propose that as we find extensions that would be generally useful to users of LLRP, that they be proposed for inclusion in the LLRP.org extension namespace. Also, the LLRP spec makes no mention of negotiation of enabled extensions, or extension versions. If a robust mechanism were proposed, the llrp.org namespace would be a likely place for it to live. What wouldn't go into this namespace? I would think that extensions that are highly specific to a given reader or client application not be included in this namespace, but properly reside under the vendor's PEN. Thoughts? -- John R. Hogerhuis http://devwrights.com/blog ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel
