Re: [6tisch] implement 6top softcell negotiation with CoAP

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 05 April 2014 19:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 629EC1A0296 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 12:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 57ISF1x6m_jx for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 12:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54A601A018C for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 12:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29CBF2002A; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 16:50:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 6292163ABA; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 15:29:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD2E63AB6; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 15:29:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Pat Kinney <pat.kinney@kinneyconsultingllc.com>
In-Reply-To: <B07F65F1-FA34-4935-97DB-56A6959B5234@kinneyconsultingllc.com>
References: <1396462112.63638.YahooMailNeo@web120002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <CAMsDxWRBs9nGShfrx6B3Vqf6DGzp3K+jTARWaraG=Yw0kdE2uw@mail.gmail.com> <1396532775.40249.YahooMailNeo@web120006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <CAMsDxWQiNZK3b=vx9g1S6RWZvo8xAbBOTOWNexa7+yHH1BbJDg@mail.gmail.com> <CF62C21A.531C%rsudhaak@cisco.com> <1396548383.50210.YahooMailNeo@web120004.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <30804.1396615803@sandelman.ca> <1396621496.93519.YahooMailNeo@web120004.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4106.1396626687@sandelman.ca> <B07F65F1-FA34-4935-97DB-56A6959B5234@kinneyconsultingllc.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 15:29:54 -0400
Message-ID: <19160.1396726194@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/5EXYbF0s5jNwtLvexkzmizyvNGg
Cc: Qin Wang <qinwang6top@yahoo.com>, "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] implement 6top softcell negotiation with CoAP
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 19:30:06 -0000

Pat Kinney <pat.kinney@kinneyconsultingllc.com> wrote:
    > Shouldn't it be implicit that when a 6tisch node joins a 6tisch network
    > it's authorizing neighboring nodes to negotiate cell scheduling with
    > itself? 

You tell me.  

1) how can a node that another node is a neighbour?   don't forget mobility,
   and don't forget about wormhole and sinkhole attacks.

2) given an industrial situation, with a series of installers who come and
   go, and who may not all be fully trusted by the plant operator,
   (I'm not making this up; see section 2 of rpl-industrial-applicability-02)
   is there some advantage to being able to program neighbour cells?

   Consider an installer that wants to skimp on those expensive high-gain
   antenna, powered relay/router nodes (the ones that require that they spend
   3 days pulling electrical power through the plant), could they achieve the
   specified deterministic performance by taking many more slots than they
   ought to have?

    > Pat Kinney
    > Kinney Consulting LLC
    > IEEE 802.15 WG vice chair, TG chair
    > ISA100.11a WG chair

I'm just leaving your credentials here, because I think you have more
connection to the people in the field than I do.   

Do you really trust EVERY SINGLE NODE in that link?
On the subnet?  
At the site?


    > Qin Wang <qinwang6top@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >> But, nodeA does not write its neighbor's (nodeB's) schedule directly, instead,
    >> nodeA only writes NeigotiationSetting of nodeB, which will trigger nodeB to
    >> schedule some cells and write its own schedule, i.e. CellList in nodeB's MIB.
    >> And then, after nodeA gets the information about the new scheduled cells from
    >> nodeB, nodeA will adjust its own schedule.

    > okay, but nodeA still needs some kind of authorization into nodeB, just not,
    > in this case, a hardcell write permission.

    > -- 
    > Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
    > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-



    > _______________________________________________
    > 6tisch mailing list
    > 6tisch@ietf.org
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch


-- 
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-