Re: [homegate] A new proposed charter (and name) for HOMEGATE

["STARK, BARBARA H (ATTLABS)" <[e-mail]>]

> 802.15.4 is not bridgeable to other common home network technologies,
> so a router will be required to connect an 802.15.4 subnet into a
> home/premises/office network.
> 
> - Ralph

Please forgive my ignorance -- but I thought 802.15.4 was a PHY + MAC
definition, and that it had absolutely no L3 in that standard. ZigBee is
a specific technology that uses 802.15.4 PHY + MAC and defines L3 to run
over it. BTW, ZigBee is not the only group to define L3 over 802.15.4.
They're just the most successful/well-known, to date.

As such, I'm completely confused why 802.15.4 is relevant -- of course
it isn't bridgeable (at an IP layer -- I assume you aren't referring to
IETF tackling bridgeability at L2), it's just PHY and MAC! But, if
you're saying that ZigBee isn't bridgeable, then your statement makes
sense. But if that's what you mean, then you should say so. And if there
are other technologies over 802.15.4 that you want to create solutions
for, then those should be called out, too, because they may have
different needs than what ZigBee has.

IMO, a router that connects to a ZigBee subnet is more of a "gateway"
device. That is, if it takes something special (at L3 and above) to go
between a "standard" home network, and a ZigBee network, then it's a
gateway. [BTW, ZigBee Alliance has been working on such gateway
definition, according to their website.] And ZigBee needs to be
primarily responsible for figuring out how this works. IETF homenet
would be well within its charter to advise ZigBee to help figure this
out. But that falls clearly within the "work with other orgs/fora" part
of the charter, and I don't see why it needs to be noted as a specific
PHY.

Will this group also be defining a gateway function for Z-Wave? Or is
there a decision that this group will support ZigBee and not Z-Wave? Or
do we really want to go there? [I know I don't.]
Barbara