Re: [6tisch] 6P RESPONSE matching
Xavi Vilajosana Guillen <xvilajosana@uoc.edu> Mon, 02 September 2019 09:17 UTC
Return-Path: <xvilajosana@uoc.edu>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CFC8120123 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 02:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=uoc.edu
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id siJFNfFxZ9hC for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 02:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x236.google.com (mail-lj1-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCC7D120122 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 02:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x236.google.com with SMTP id l1so12133768lji.12 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 02:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uoc.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LwFc1ZrtOL+VvKa36Ci9QVsEgOZRpPOy/2zPKk6FQo8=; b=ddsfz6TN+jnkDC3CtYLTbEw988amxHoHa/555tkWs0yjZXdM9TGW0BZ8Lr3LJx4I8z r+m3v09nCMe/cA6H/HpeDdMTHH4OE9BYaoH/uG17KsBHlbSoQ6jVrlZ7wptQqnMif5Ub QZjEZR3CAJvA6XClgR2jqq5tdllb+DtCqj3TE=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LwFc1ZrtOL+VvKa36Ci9QVsEgOZRpPOy/2zPKk6FQo8=; b=IW72StocLPcm11szQr8f8atRnaen+KREtwMtEpb4PeQuNL0l8ogSw1vneNbPvgUOay hhKjZSPeegw6KCcS0cPXdEjt7tE6RcfJkZWgT3zpZMFv7n7vXxZ9zV9o+w6AyPa2oeMq 0IvbYN9YDQE4JgUyuN4hixhVtTcYHRH7LVxxFsjBIgAd+W5QMy9pZujQfKYB/SI4ilpU Qa9vQ8vXD0ZEbHp7sm5KIASlKD/rqD7Qr7dnjlSIvAPdcrFD7QsMfBydNSowtNKXNp8p kwgb/vFxtuq6sQU58QSKl/dV2ZrJ18OeZ3ENsvmEgv+2sXa4a89Xm6X4bdDFtrarCm/5 qacA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUS4OJLEr+OxwrFswvzD35GgFRAonk3laDvVwPvTZLnqYD0NM2K f7netZ/WTsQHQeEIw3GQlx51/4ck3AN1TOoM2y/Umw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy3xhTBn/LB/hpuZDC/vJU7/ZdhoMrRKFTRpRxy67v1VmvZJaSBACkArSxPrDyonoUAMrnHc6NRkJIEWDudf5Y=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:94cd:: with SMTP id r13mr6702314ljh.24.1567415818025; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 02:16:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5d6940d2.1c69fb81.ea017.b5bf@mx.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <5d6940d2.1c69fb81.ea017.b5bf@mx.google.com>
From: Xavi Vilajosana Guillen <xvilajosana@uoc.edu>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 11:16:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC9+vPjg1VO6PyNDnHO5fOtJZUKZOcomYBvd0Bk=N2P_Rs8kig@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gioele Carignani <gioelecarignani@gmail.com>
Cc: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000c894605918e6f3b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/-jqe_gzSVi1kcizLrCwt3AbLWAg>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] 6P RESPONSE matching
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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" <6tisch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6tisch/>
List-Post: <mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 09:17:03 -0000
Hi Gioele, for a transaction the RFC states 6P Request, 6P Response, and 6P Confirmation messages for a given transaction MUST share the same Version, SFID, and SeqNum values. The case when the response uses a different seqnum can only happen if the issuer of the response power cycles. In this case, section 3.4.6.1 and 3.4.6.2 detail the procedure to follow. Basically, the transaction should be aborted. And the SF should take action to solve the inconsistency. regards X Missatge de Gioele Carignani <gioelecarignani@gmail.com> del dia dv., 30 d’ag. 2019 a les 17:29: > Hi all, > I was looking into RFC 8480, and I would like to know how RESPONSE > messages with an inconsistent SeqNum (for example the SeqNum that would be > used for the next transaction) are treated. > > Under the assumption that this RESPONSE messages does not match any > REQUEST, will this message simply be ignored or is a CLEAR transaction > started? > Thank you > > _______________________________________________ > 6tisch mailing list > 6tisch@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch > -- Dr. Xavier Vilajosana Wireless Networks Lab *Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3)Professor* (+34) 646 633 681 xvilajosana@uoc.edu <usuari@uoc.edu> http://xvilajosana.org http://wine.rdi.uoc.edu Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia Av Carl Friedrich Gauss 5, B3 Building 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona). Catalonia. Spain [image: Universitat Oberta de Catalunya]
- [6tisch] 6P RESPONSE matching Gioele Carignani
- Re: [6tisch] 6P RESPONSE matching Xavi Vilajosana Guillen