Re: [6lowapp] [6lowpan] hardware trends, new vs. existing protocols [Re: 4861 usage in LLNs]

The charter is presumably a draft, not a consensus. The numbers in the  
charter seem to lack rigorous justification, so I'm not comfortable  
with them as they stand. So, yes, I'm suggesting to either drop the  
numbers or make them more useful. In addition, memory size arguments  
are not terribly helpful unless each proposal will have a canonical  
implementation in the I-D. At least from my experience, people are  
very bad at estimating implementation complexity, except that one's  
own proposal by definition has lower complexity than any competing  
proposals.

Henning

On Nov 10, 2009, at 6:13 PM, Richard Kelsey wrote:

>   Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:13:24 -0800
>   From: Kris Pister <pister@eecs.berkeley.edu>
>
>   I think that today's things are being designed with
>   wonderful chips like your Ember EM351 and EM357 which
>   have 128kB and 192kB of flash and lots of RAM; like the
>   Jennic JN5148, the Freescale MC13224, the Dust DN2510.
>   They can run IP, they will run IP, and in many cases they
>   do run IP.
>
> Kris,
>
> Their wonderfulness aside, those chips are not what the
> 6lowpan charter describes.  Yes, I agree that rechartering
> for bigger platforms would make our job easier, and could
> reduce the number of new protocols needed.  I am not arguing
> for or against it, just asking you if you are proposing that
> we amend the charter.  If not, then we should use the specs
> that it has.
>                            -Richard Kelsey
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowapp mailing list
> 6lowapp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp
>