I believe both TEP 104 (Radio Physical Layer) and TEP 105 (Radio Link Layer) are interesting parts and deserve effort, especially for those working on physical and MAC layers rather than higher layers.
Can I take a look at the latest draft on TEP105 (since 104 is not available), although it may be incomplete or a bit stale? Thanks.
Tie
On 9/11/06, Joe Polastre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
--
Regards,
Tie
_______________________________________________ Tinyos-help mailing list [email protected] https://mail.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
