Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes:
> it also mentions some of the enormous payload bloating approaches
> from the mid-90s.

starting possibly mid-95, going forward for a time, appeared to be a
period leaning towards extreme extravagance; enormously complex
protocols (that few people understood) and humongous payload bloat (in
some cases by one hundred times or more), were frequently viewed as
being *better*.

--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/

John Navas wrote:

>> Aha! These profiles are the things I saw. I know I'm preaching to the
>> choir, but IMO, Bluetooth SIG did far too much. This is perfect
>> example of overstepping (good) boundaries.
>>
>> At some point this will all work better when we learn to trust each
>> layer (research group bound to that layer) to do what it does best, and
>> nothing more.
>
> Not necessarily -- there are many real-world cases when stretching things
> makes sense.

Like Bluetooth - where the profiles mean that devices interoperate at
the level consumers want, not only the MAC layer.


Thomas

Zak wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
> > Not necessarily -- there are many real-world cases when stretching things
> > makes sense.

Stretching things almost always make sense. Anytime we use a system,
we have "streched" things. The point that I was making is that those
who are not good at stretching should do their part and let others do
theirs.

> Like Bluetooth - where the profiles mean that devices interoperate at
> the level consumers want, not only the MAC layer.

That's true. I doubt thought any consumer would be able to signal a
Bluetooth transceiver any faster than 100-150 baud.

-Le Chaud Lapin-