Talk:Bluetooth: Difference between revisions
→Implementation section.: new section |
DewiMorgan (talk | contribs) m Linking more recent archives. |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|archive = Talk:Bluetooth/Archive %(year)d |
|archive = Talk:Bluetooth/Archive %(year)d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{archive box|<center>[[/Archive 2004|2004]]<br />[[/Archive 2005|2005]]<br />[[/Archive 2006|2006]]<br />[[/Archive 2007|2007]]</center>}} |
{{archive box|<center>[[/Archive 2004|2004]]<br />[[/Archive 2005|2005]]<br />[[/Archive 2006|2006]]<br />[[/Archive 2007|2007]]<br />[[/Archive 2008|2008]]<br />[[/Archive 2009|2009]]<br />[[/Archive 2010|2010]]</center>}} |
||
== OSI Layer == |
== OSI Layer == |
||
Revision as of 19:27, 19 June 2010
 | Telecommunications C‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
|
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
OSI Layer
As a developer, I think it might be very handy if images were added. It's somewhat vague in comparison to 802.11
Transfer Speeds?
I saw no mention of the rates of which you can transfer data with bluetooth. I seem to average about 38kb/s which was surprisingly slow when compared to other methods off transferring data.
Reference/Link Needed
In the ICP section:
"Intercom Profile (ICP)
- This is often referred to as the walkie-talkie profile. It is another TCS based profile, relying on SCO to carry the audio. It is proposed to allow voice calls between two Bluetooth capable handsets, over Bluetooth."
It say this is "...another TCS based profile". However, TCS is not defined on the page, or linked.
Secure Simple Pairing (SPP)
In the section on SPP it is written that, "for use-cases not requiring MITM protection, user interaction has been eliminated."
The user no longer has to enter a PIN, but don't they have to initiate the pairing process? Otherwise - if pairing can happen spontaneously - then the authentication becomes meaningless, doesn't it?
Qwavel (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Implementation section.
I don't understand the relationship between the 'implementation' and 'technical information' sections. Both appear to contain technical information about the protocol, and I would think they should be combined.
The only reason for having a separate 'implementation' section would if this was about implementation details as distinct from the definition of the standard, but I doubt that such a section would be suitable here.