Subject: [seamoby] Which Bluetooth?

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:02:05 -0800 (PST)

Kulwinder Atwal wrote:

>The LAN profile is profile and as such is completely and totally optional.
>Therefore, it is completely inappropriate for them to use words like the
>profile "Mandates".  Or, make statements like "if you want to run IP over
>Bluetooth 1.0, this is the required way to support it!".  Because, tomorrow
>I can come up with my own profile that is the complete opposite, and if I so
>choose, have it approved by the SIG.  There is currently an explosion of
>profiles in the SIG.  It should read, "This is how this particular profile
>implements IP over Bluetooth".  The only requirement is that for every
>"client" stack on one side that there exists a similiar "server" stack on
>the other side for the "client" to have something to talk to.  Or, simply
>that you need the same driver on both ends.  This is nothing new to anyone
>in the IETF. (Networking 101) 

This leaves me with more than a little concern. 

If anyone can define a Bluetooth profile, then which profile should
we be concentrating on? I suppose one could say "all" but neverthess.
This seems like a recipe for an interoperability nightmare.

My impression is that the LAN profile was the Bluetooth
Association's recommendation to what L2 to use for IP. Is that not so? If it
is, then barring the case where IETF defines its own profile, I'd like to 
propose that we concentrate on the LAN profile to avoid talking about 
hypothetical profiles that may or  may not happen. Naturally, it is important to 
keep in mind future growth and future L2s, but I don't think arguments about how 
the Bluetooth L1 works are helpful in focussing on what may or may not
be needed in getting a micromobility protocol to support IP on Bluetooth.

All this is made more complicated by the fact that it is next to impossible
to get details about the direction the Bluetooth Association is
going in from outside, and that information is even selectively disclosed
to members depending on their status.

		jak

---

From: Kulwinder Atwal <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:51:12 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:02 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [seamoby] Which Bluetooth?
> 
> 

What I am saying is that Seamoby itself will end up being a profile seperate
from the LAN profile no matter where you decide to put it.  This is because
the Bluetooth SIG is standards based.  They will always try to adopt (rubber
stamp) a protocol as a profile before "re-inventing the wheel". And, it will
become an "official" SIG profile because it came from the IETF.  If you plan
to use the Host Controller for a non-standard purpose, you are free to do so
as long you understand that it is non-standard.

> Association's recommendation to what L2 to use for IP. Is 
> that not so?

It is one of many.  The IETF SLP will be an other.  Your book I believe.

> If it

Take a look at the spec:

http://www.bluetooth.com/developer/specification/specification.asp