Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 5 Sep 2019 09:34:19 +0200
From:   "michal.lowas-rzechonek@silvair.com" 
        <michal.lowas-rzechonek@silvair.com>
To:     "Gix, Brian" <brian.gix@intel.com>
Cc:     "linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org" <linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Stotland, Inga" <inga.stotland@intel.com>,
        "simon@silvair.com" <simon@silvair.com>
Subject: Re: mesh: org.bluez.mesh.Element.MessageReceived method does not
 provide destination address
Message-ID: <20190905073419.urwfdf5bbghkmj4k@mlowasrzechonek2133>
Mail-Followup-To: "Gix, Brian" <brian.gix@intel.com>,
        "linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org" <linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Stotland, Inga" <inga.stotland@intel.com>,
        "simon@silvair.com" <simon@silvair.com>
References: <20190830184301.zd3zaqrw7mv6r252@kynes>
 <20190904192525.2dqyihabxmigb54m@kynes>
 <20190904194808.nu2cy4vp6uh64m4z@kynes>
 <d79b733068e30cfa1cef106e44b7f9ee7c31526d.camel@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <d79b733068e30cfa1cef106e44b7f9ee7c31526d.camel@intel.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Brian,

On 09/04, Gix, Brian wrote:
> > Since PDO payloads are *not* self-describing (unlike mesh sensor
> > messages), the receiving party must be aware of the mapping in order to
> > parse the data.
> > 
> > In CANOpen, format is determined by the address - in mesh, it could very
> > well be a virtual label.
> 
> I think that this is an interesting use of Virtual Addresses, and in
> addition to this, Mesh Virtual Addresses have been suggested as a way
> of addressing IPv6 addressing as well...  However:
> 
> 1. There is already a way something like this could be used already:
>    A model could be created that gets subscribed to the Virtual
>    Addresses that require handling by the node.

But the whole idea is that the virtual labels and packing are configured
dynamically (by the commissioner) according to their specific needs.

If a model doesn't receive the *value* of the label, you would need a
separate model for each of the virtuals. This is problematic, because
composition data is immutable, so you wouldn't be able to reconfigure
these mappings without at least re-provisioning the whole network.

> In any case the ability to create simple mesh Apps with minimal
> complexity remains intact, and as an added bonus, the Open Source
> community (not to mention the Bluetooth Mesh Working Group and larger
> SIG) can weigh in on the preferred methodologies.

Aren't *we* the community? :P

-- 
Michał Lowas-Rzechonek <michal.lowas-rzechonek@silvair.com>
Silvair http://silvair.com
Jasnogórska 44, 31-358 Krakow, POLAND