Re: [6tsch] terminology draft: quick questions
Pascal Thubert <pascal.thubert@gmail.com> Fri, 12 July 2013 16:47 UTC
Return-Path: <pascal.thubert@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B11F21F9E11 for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tm9mtvNHYO+f for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x235.google.com (mail-wg0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA60221F933B for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id y10so8524633wgg.32 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:47:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date :to; bh=QTE4AQjdyNuCaC75Id7pI8adp8cXOGUTraAvVOIEOFw=; b=L4u5TsdJYGkOvADE9NDK7+ZlSGbz3g9Ctp1vYdxYAm0/KX5HQMumqTsftfL5rOA1Zb gsf6ODhc+cvuu/PWJ1S+7+QOBHimxxrVOfGmNp3g4KcHV8ZJSOukUisjN0bpF6o8RTH3 b2Igj95Vwz9y1WUbpsvlR4CR5SYOyxlb3jkChNeLHk+Jd3GVbYhJBH1G18qtUyHLxOKM km4SvoWbT3S1IUoOMjh9imrxacQykUDxgrEHSezxBTIZyZwOJ0j3a49sKMFD/Yy2/Ydy XcNgouo3F9hqu+ymQiNyn9ykTZKyT756djEKLs2W2sqEHEcEHzxxqUw+k/UGyGAb5Now j9sA==
X-Received: by 10.180.74.232 with SMTP id x8mr2130208wiv.48.1373647641680; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:47:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2a01:e34:ee75:2ac0:a114:2ef6:ce9c:d2da? ([2a01:e34:ee75:2ac0:a114:2ef6:ce9c:d2da]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id s19sm4469158wik.11.2013.07.12.09.47.20 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:47:21 -0700 (PDT)
References: <CADJ9OA8YUqyFSefpgxd7iurL-mk3sm0EEkNfmaZVkcP+jRUBNg@mail.gmail.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD84136FC01@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <CAAzoce7VSFFh=mA+fy+OaLE8Zd1c=HaaGEHdZ-XAWQONOWOnBg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CAAzoce7VSFFh=mA+fy+OaLE8Zd1c=HaaGEHdZ-XAWQONOWOnBg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-F4CFD913-21D7-42CC-8B49-44867C24A48E"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <42BC72D8-EBEB-4CBB-A36D-B9DDF4877208@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B350)
From: Pascal Thubert <pascal.thubert@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 18:47:18 +0200
To: Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu>
Cc: Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, 6TSCH <6tsch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tsch] terminology draft: quick questions
X-BeenThere: 6tsch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <6tsch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tsch>, <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tsch>
List-Post: <mailto:6tsch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch>, <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 16:47:25 -0000
Well we still need to indicate that the link scope is one radio hop, that much is non obvious. And I think it is better to have the entry if only to avoid any confusion and insist that we use the IETF term, what do you think? Pascal Le 12 juil. 2013 à 18:42, Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu> a écrit : > Hi Pascal, > > Do you mean we use same definition of Link as IP link? If yes, maybe we can remove the term of "Link" from this draft. How do you think? > > Thanks > Qin > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote: >> Hi Thomas: >> >> >> >> As an IETF document we can expect that the reader will understand the link as an IP link as opposed to a 802.15.4e one. >> >> Maybe our terminology should refer to existing RFCs and say that we have the same concept. We need to insist that these are one hop things for L3 operations… >> >> >> >> RFC 4862 >> >> >> >> >> link - a communication facility or medium over which nodes can >> >> communicate at the link layer, i.e., the layer immediately below >> >> IP. Examples are Ethernets (simple or bridged); PPP links; X.25, >> >> Frame Relay, or ATM networks; and Internet (or higher) layer >> >> "tunnels", such as tunnels over IPv4 or IPv6 itself. The protocol >> >> described in this document will be used on all types of links >> >> unless specified otherwise in the link-type-specific document >> >> describing how to operate IP on the link in line with [RFC4861]. >> >> interface - a node's attachment to a link. >> >> >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-07 >> >> >> >> Link >> a communication facility or medium over which nodes can >> communicate at the link layer, i.e., the layer immediately below >> IP. Examples are Ethernets (simple or bridged), PPP links, X.25, >> Frame Relay, or ATM networks as well as internet (or higher) layer >> "tunnels", such as tunnels over IPv4 or IPv6 itself. >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Pascal >> >> >> >> From: 6tsch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6tsch-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Watteyne >> Sent: vendredi 12 juillet 2013 15:40 >> >> >> To: 6TSCH >> Subject: [6tsch] terminology draft: quick questions >> >> >> Maria Rita, >> >> >> >> I'm going over the (draft) terminology draft at https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/draft-palattella-6tsch-terminology/ , and see that the term "link" is defined as >> >> >> >> "Single-hop connection between two or more devices. It can be dedicated (point-to-point), multi-point, broadcast." >> >> >> >> Quick questions: >> >> - do we want to use the term link at all. This raised some conflicts with IETF and IEEE802.15.4e terminology, and we went for "bundle" and "cell". Maybe this "link" refers to a different element? >> >> - in the current definition, what do p-to-p and multi-point mean? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Thomas >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6tsch mailing list >> 6tsch@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch >> > > _______________________________________________ > 6tsch mailing list > 6tsch@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
- [6tsch] terminology draft: quick questions Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] terminology draft: quick questions Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] terminology draft: quick questions Pascal Thubert
- Re: [6tsch] terminology draft: quick questions Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] terminology draft: quick questions Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6tsch] terminology draft: quick questions Maria Rita PALATTELLA