[Tinyos-devel] two zigbee implementations

[Vlado Handziski]

We talked about this at the last Core WG meeting, and I we also tend towards
the two WG option.

TUB is very much interested in cooperating with others in establishing a
15.4 WG. The charter of the group can rests on two pillars: the maintenance
and further improvement (porting to new platforms, etc.) of a standard
compliant IEEE 802.15.4 implementation in TinyOS, and the exploration of
modifications and extensions of the standard driven by specific requirements
in particular vertical markets as well as by old (Zigbee) and new (ROLL,
etc.) standardization efforts in the routing and layers above.

If there are enough interested parties that can unite around these goals,
moving the responsibility out of Core and forming a separate WG seems to be
the right framework to support the future efforts.

So I join your call to the community, we need a show of hands to see if
anyone else would like to participate.

Vlado

On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 8:33 AM, David E. Culler
<culler at eecs.berkeley.edu>wrote:

>  I think the concerns are valid, as are Phil's observations that WGs can
> evolve in many ways.  I suppose the question should be put out to the Berlin
> and Porto groups.  Would you welcome the participation of others into the
> WGs?  And similarly to the larger community, are there other groups or
> individuals interested in working on these issues?  Any takers?
>
> Philip Levis wrote:
>
> On Jul 24, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Omprakash Gnawali wrote:
>
>
>
>  Although we are not SC, net2 discussed the current proposals for 15.4
> and Zigbee WGs, and our recommendation is to form two WGs.
>
> Our concern is 15.4 WG, as it is proposed, would have people
> exclusively from Berlin. Zigbee WG, as it is proposed, would have
> people exclusively from Porto.
>
> An excerpt from the page on working groups
> (http://tinyos.net/scoop/special/working_groups) states:
>
> "While not a requirement, the SC strongly encourages that the initial
> member list include multiple perspectives. Working groups bring people
> together to work on a topic collaboratively; ideologically exclusive
> groups are contrary to this goal."
>
> We think there are good reasons why we want people from different
> perspectives to be in a WGs and we would like to see this tradition
> given a continuity. Or we should discuss why these proposed WGs should
> be exceptions.
>
>
>  Working groups are just a mechanism to let people to come together and
> work on topics of interest. It's always been the intention that new
> working groups can form out of the existing work of current ones.
> net2, for example, was an off-shoot from core once the link layer was
> stable enough to support multihop protocols. Furthermore, working
> groups aren't intended to be exclusive; while net2 works on multihop
> protocols, that by no means suggests there can't be other WGs who do
> so as well, especially if there are good relationships between the two.
>
> If the best use of the mechanism is to form more focused working
> groups on these topics, then we should do that. If the best use of the
> mechanism is to have larger groups of diverse topics, then we should
> do that. It really comes down to what those who want to build and
> design stuff feel is best for their productivity.
>
> Phil
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tinyos-devel mailing listTinyos-devel at millennium.berkeley.eduhttps://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-devel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tinyos-devel mailing list
> Tinyos-devel at millennium.berkeley.edu
> https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/pipermail/tinyos-devel/attachments/20080726/1f8bd1a8/attachment.htm