HIP draft: LoRaWAN Frequency Plan Selection #298
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like the proposal as it ensures that the community has a chance to provide feedback on upcoming changes. This will strengthen the overall network as decisions will be more in line with the interests of network participants. Nice work @lthiery !
jamiew
changed the title
Co-authored-by: Jamie Wilkinson <jamie@jamiedubs.com>
* HIP-42 initial submission * Better aligned name to proposal * v2 * Number and merge HIP 42 Co-authored-by: Jamie Wilkinson <jamie@jamiedubs.com>
* Create 0043-update-release-guidelines.md Add HIP to update software release guidelines * Update 0043-update-release-guidelines.md Update explanation to include possibility of a timeframe to implement updates (suggested by @shawaj) * Change "update" to "software" for clarity Co-authored-by: Jamie Dubs <jamie@jamiedubs.com>
* initial draft * Update xxxx-witness-decay.md * Number as 44 Co-authored-by: Jamie Dubs <jamie@jamiedubs.com>
|
This HIP draft has been numbered and merged for discussion as HIP 45. Please direct future questions & comments to the new tracking issue: #311 If you are one of the named authors, please include |
|
I just listened to the recording of the 27/10 Community Call. Great job with this HIP, having a mechanism for community input it the way to go in "The Peoples Network" While there is still much to be done in this space, the alternative mentioned in the HIP or providing a manual selection when asserting location is a bit dangerous given that the large % of Hotspot operators have little idea of Lorawan Frequency plans especially when they are getting started, the risks would be a very fragmented network. Great job with the HIP and if further input is required specifically for the Australian region I am eager to assist. |
rendered view: https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/2f2d66f6a6ee706c9da291f7fd019ab412da24a6/004x-lorawan-frequency-plan-selection.md