Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides

[Qin Wang <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pascal,

According to my understanding, wirelessHart or ISA100.11a devices have to
implement their entire stack, including their own Application layer,
network layer, DL, and 802.15.4 MAC and PHY. So,  if we want to use 6top to
forward the packets from WirelessHart and ISA100.11a, we have to
investigate the method to merge 6top with the two standards, and to replace
lower layers of the two standards. Do we really want to do it?

Thus, instead of saying that 6top targets building a common base for
different standards (including wirelessHart and ISA100.11a), I would like
to focus on IPv6 context, and use the two standards as facts to show the
advantage of TSCH.

How do you think?

Qin




On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>  Dear Qin:****
>
> ** **
>
> In this case we need to align time slots that are computed by 2 protocols
> to make a single track. Computing those tracks would be PCE work, and
> agreeing to collate path segments is the sort of things PCEs do.****
>
> ** **
>
> I think it’s OK. It’s not really impacting the mote. What’s impacting the
> mote is the capability to talk both protocols to forward packets and how it
> will do that (ona same interface?) is TBD.****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers,****
>
> ** **
>
> Pascal****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf
> Of *Qin Wang
> *Sent:* lundi 22 juillet 2013 17:35
> *To:* Alfredo Grieco
> *Cc:* 6TSCH
> *Subject:* Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides****
>
> ** **
>
> Alfredo,****
>
> ** **
>
> It may be too heavy to coordinate with WirelessHart and ISA100.11a. Should
> we commit it? I think we need to discuss the problem in ML. How do you
> think?****
>
> ** **
>
> Qin****
>
> ** **
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Alfredo Grieco <[e-mail]>
> wrote:****
>
> Hi Qin,
>
> There is also this further clarification in 6.1.2
>
> “In that mode, the PCE may coordinate with a WirelessHART Network Manager
> or
> an ISA100.11a System Manager in order to specify the flows that are to be
> transported transparently over the Track.”
>
> I was referring to this last one.
>
> What do you think ?
>
> Cheers and thanks
>
> Al****
>
>
> Da: Qin Wang [mailto:[e-mail]]****
>
> Inviato: Monday, July 22, 2013 5:20 PM
> A: Alfredo Grieco
> Cc: 6TSCH****
>
> Oggetto: Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides
>
> Hi Alfredo,
>
> Thank you very much for finding it out, i.e. in section 6,
>
> "As a result, as long as the TSCH MAC (and Layer 2 security) accepts a
> frame, that frame can be switched regardless of the protocol, whether this
> is an IPv6 packet, a 6LoWPAN fragment, or a frame from an alternate
> protocol
> such as WirelessHART of ISA100.11a."
>
> But, from implementation point of view, it seems to me that the NW layer of
> WirelessHART or ISA100.11a has to call the commands of 6top, instead of the
> primitives of DL layer defined in WirelessHart and ISA100.11a. I'm not sure
> if it works for WirelessHart and ISA100.11a.
>
> Thought?
> Qin
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Alfredo Grieco <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> Hi Qin,
>
> Sorry for the late reply.
>
> If you go to Sec. 6 of the architecture draft
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6tsch-architecture-02) we
> explicitly say that ISA100.11a and WiHart could interoperate with a 6tsch
> lln.
>
> In this sense, we move from competing to interoperating standards.
>
> Does it sound for you ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Alfredo
>
>
>
>
>
> Da: Qin Wang [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Inviato: Friday, July 19, 2013 10:35 PM
> A: Alfredo Grieco
> Cc: Thomas Watteyne; 6TSCH; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> Oggetto: Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides
>
> Alfredo,
>
> Thank you for clarifying. But, I'm still confused. Maybe I missed
> something.
> Can you tell me what you mean by "competing stds"?
>
> Thanks!
> Qin
>
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Alfredo Grieco <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> Qin,
>
> I was saying the opposite: 6top goes on top.
>
> There was a nice picture shown by Pascal in one of our weekly call several
> weeks ago.
>
> Of course, the point you raise about ipv6 taking advantage from tsch is ok.
>
> Cheers
>
> Alfredo
>
> On Friday, July 19, 2013, Qin Wang wrote:
> Hi Alfredo,
>
> I don't think  WirelessHart and ISA100.11a can be added on top of 6top. The
> reasons are:
>
> (1) They have their own and different protocol stacks.
> (2) They use Timeslotted channel hopping technology, but not IEEE802.15.4e
> TSCH.
>
> So, according to my understanding, the problem is how IPv6 protocol stack
> can take advantage of TSCH, which has been proven good and standardized by
> IEEE.
>
> Thought?
> Qin
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Alfredo Grieco <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> Dear Qin,
>
> As far as I remember, it could be also possible to embrace other
> technologies by adding on top of them 6top. No need to replace but include
> other technologies.
>
> Cheers
>
> Alfredo
>
>
> On Friday, July 19, 2013, Qin Wang wrote:
> Hi Thomas and All,
>
> The first item of problems in the slide is:
>
>       Customer dissatisfaction with competing stds
>       -> no device interop, double opex
>       -> lack of common network management
> What does "competing stds" refer to? Referring to existing standards like
> WirelessHart, ISA100.11a, or something else? From the statement, it may be
> derived that 6TSCH WG wants to create a common standard to replace the
> competing standards. It is not our objective, right?
> Maybe I misunderstand something. Please point out.
> Thanks
> Qin
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Thomas Watteyne
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> All,
>
> FYI, I pushed the 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides we modified live
> during the webex onto the repo. You'll find the latest version at
> https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/meetings/src/master/130730_ietf-87_berlin
>
> Thomas
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tsch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>