On Apr 30, 2008, at 6:02 AM, Matt Welsh wrote: > That makes a lot more sense to me than just "protocols developed by > net2". As Om said you only need about 15-20 IDs, but you're > proposing to claim 128. Seems like a mismatch. > > Here's a proposal. As TinyOS matures it's clear that we need some > way to resolve AM ID space conflicts. One approach is for net2 (or > some appropriate working group) to maintain the AM ID registry for > all *standard* protocols included in the TinyOS core tree (apart > from contrib).
What is a standard protocol? I mean, if it's in the tree, it needs to be able to work with the other protocols in the tree. Note that protocols defined in apps/ would fall into the range 0-127. > When a protocol is pushed into the main tree, it is assigned AM > ID(s) by the net2 WG and these are published somewhere (doc wiki > seems like a good idea). Those IDs would be assigned in the range > 128-255. The range 0-127 is marked as "unassigned" and applications > are free to use anything in that range (at their own peril). > > The main challenge with this approach is determining what > constitutes an "official" protocol that warrants an ID in the > reserved space. Over time I would expect accretion of "dead" > protocols that are claiming AM IDs. One policy would be for the AM > ID to have a renewal period of, say, 2 years. This problem would > largely go away if we could move to 16-bit AM IDs. I think the criterion is "in the tinyos-2.x tree." More precisely, a protocol has an ID in the range 128-255 iff it is in tinyos-2.x/tos/. Phil _______________________________________________ Tinyos-help mailing list [email protected] https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
