[riot-devel] NSTF - Naming the stack

Emmanuel Baccelli Emmanuel.Baccelli at inria.fr
Mon May 18 15:55:35 CEST 2015

Hi everyone,

concerning the name of the new network stack, and assuming it is not going
to be the only network stack that RIOT hosts, here's a suggestion.

The way I see it, the goal of this network stack was/is to be generic [1]:
- one-size-fits-most
- flexible/configurable/extendable

In contrast, other stacks that RIOT supports (or is about to support) have
more specific goals, e.g.
- OpenWSN stack (focus on 802.15.4e and 6TiSCH)
- Kaspar's IP stack focusing on fitting the memory constraints of Class 0
- CCN-lite stack focusing on NDN and CCN

So how about we simply name the new network stack "the generic stack" and,
where needed in the code, we could abbreviate the word "generic" by eliding
the vowels from the word, which then becomes the acronym/prefix "gnrc".

Somehow, we can convene that "gnrc" could/can be pronounced almost like the
original word "generic".



[1] Word definition from Webster dictionary:
Generic: Very comprehensive; pertaining or appropriate to large classes or
their characteristics; -- opposed to specific.

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Oleg Hahm <oliver.hahm at inria.fr> wrote:

> Hi Ludwig!
> > Isn't ccn-lite using the lower layer(s) (MAC, LLC, driver - correct me if
> > I'm wrong) of the old stack and should be upgraded to use the lower
> layer(s)
> > of the new stack? (What about OpenWSN?) Or are those layers not
> considered
> > part of the stack?
> Yes, you're right, ccn-lite can run directly on top of Link Layer (and
> actually more or less any other layer) and should be upgraded.
> OpenWSN provides a full network stack from Link to Application Layer.
> > >I think we cannot compare to Linux,
> > >BSD, and
> > >the like here. They can afford to make different modules somehow
> > >interoperable
> > >at cost of memory, we cannot.
> >
> > As far as I remember, the modularization of the new stack had exactly
> this
> > as a goal.
> Yes, that's correct. However, there will - as Kaspar pointed out - still
> exist
> other stack implementations. Actually, this might be another reason for a
> name: if one implements a new module for this stack, one should indicate
> that
> it is compatible to stack XYZ.
> Cheers,
> Oleg
> --
> panic("This never returns");
>         linux-2.6.6/kernel/power/swsusp.c
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel at riot-os.org
> https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.riot-os.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150518/2bddb296/attachment.html>

More information about the devel mailing list