I agree, the implementation of TEP105 is stale relative to the codebase. However, there are some ideas in there that I believe are applicable regardless of the details of implementation. If there is an active discussion on the new TEP105, please add me to the list. Thanks,
-Joe On 9/10/06, Philip Levis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sep 10, 2006, at 3:22 PM, Joe Polastre wrote: > 1) I originally wrote TEP105 and no one in this group (or any other > group) has ever asked me to help revisit it, including David Culler. I judged that TEP 105 is at this point defunct. It was last touched/ discussed 18 months ago, and was based on the 1.x CC2420 and CC1000 implementations, neither of which any longer exist in 2.x. This should be evident by the use of TOSMsg rather than message_t. David proposed a related but different TEP regarding CSMA; the WG discussed whether it would be better to give the TEP a new number or use it was an opportunity to reuse a defunct number, as they lead to some confusion. The conclusion was to reuse 105: http://tinyos.stanford.edu:8000/TinyOS_2.x_WG/07.12.2006 > 2) I don't recall any discussions where it was concluded to be > "trickier than originally thought." I was referring to 104. Apologies if this wasn't clear. Phil
_______________________________________________ Tinyos-help mailing list [email protected] https://mail.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
