Subject: [6lo] Last Call: <draft-ietf-6lo-btle-13.txt> (IPv6 over BLUETOOTH(R) Low Energy) to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 05:58:46 -0700

The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 over Networks of
Resource-constrained Nodes WG (6lo) to consider the following document:
- 'IPv6 over BLUETOOTH(R) Low Energy'
  <draft-ietf-6lo-btle-13.txt> as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2015-06-09. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   Bluetooth Smart is the brand name for the Bluetooth low energy
   feature in the Bluetooth specification defined by the Bluetooth
   Special Interest Group.  The standard Bluetooth radio has been widely
   implemented and available in mobile phones, notebook computers, audio
   headsets and many other devices.  The low power version of Bluetooth
   is a specification that enables the use of this air interface with
   devices such as sensors, smart meters, appliances, etc.  The low
   power variant of Bluetooth is standardized since the revision 4.0 of
   the Bluetooth specifications, although version 4.1 or newer is
   required for IPv6.  This document describes how IPv6 is transported
   over Bluetooth low energy using 6LoWPAN techniques.

The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-btle/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-btle/ballot/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 17:32:45 +0200

>    <draft-ietf-6lo-btle-13.txt> as Proposed Standard

Hi,

BTLE is a good tech, but it is not backwards compatible - a BTLE smart 
object does not talk to a BT smartphone - you have to buy a new 
smartphone because of the BTLE devices.

So I wonder whether mandatory HC in IP/BTLE does not introduce 
compatibility problems to IP (HC is optional in IP/BT)?

As an end user, I would have appreciated if BTLE were compatible with BT 
in first place.

If BTLE were rendered compatible with BT in the near future - will 
mandatory HC of this RFC break IP?  Or will this RFC survive unmodified 
when BTLE is made compatible to BT?

(to understand this questioning compare this retro-compatibility issue 
to 802.11b, g, n, ac).

Yours,

Alex

> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
>
>