[6tisch] Review on draft-tiloca-6tisch-robust-scheduling-01

Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com> Thu, 04 April 2019 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <tengfei.chang@gmail.com>
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 512D812010D for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 09:47:00 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Y2hp8ws2Riyg for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 09:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x429.google.com (mail-pf1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::429]) (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 7BB441200C7 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 09:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x429.google.com with SMTP id i19so1660350pfd.0 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 09:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=sEhdhepvxL/jRXdGxkPf56ZGpTcW5RFbuSvrnfMqcp0=; b=itXv8E5BKkcxW9ls9LrfRaNo3yH4owqHgZtkIL8HM31IKKw08/q/ELho9tqOGSCc9j qkbJ9Z5SRd5Oi6q30WxfLjp1oJqteC4vDHAkJK+6mbXxTkP6meR0YDTa3i1Z7jYbSXoy VquLBEsUjGhw7ydFl2uq0At+oMaskIPsdDai4AyuqZM8vpzc6pbE4WJ9gIB3ZkQemTbY 9944ux3W8urCYp4a2JpvgTI1qvcuaaM4I/MqXFUHaQ5ri7/3ATRuco/usCKC3jgrni0i Miwe9yS9YJ9JEfTNnemgB3Rb9McTvE6sPVq3WCDcLAOPm04gvn06jiC/OjWPaRaMnLL3 bCsA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=sEhdhepvxL/jRXdGxkPf56ZGpTcW5RFbuSvrnfMqcp0=; b=SE1pPCthaWPWn2tXKFwuIf7Oq2jr+Dym0KwqC4R8WCJzy4Iasn0IiwZqBOKk+f1qND 2NBF3MDXsCS8HLLpKnzG3AKYF2eDaV40YzjwRBIfGdv/uBMmkpJk9DEszJmZuhUVYLd4 L5NWTjKom8EemmfzSWxxRW7lFnX/rpz3YGmlcCXNautVEhk68eTXi2LOGwS38JrUlpcz 4QWQPOltggAsUjMMk/Ln6yUhM6HPo49kD5oA7uw3niyiT1Rsp6nRFq8ZxZQCegH/p/Ex feT0eOdkv7xG6ncpJYMA5e4TXXNbWP4knvRzgNKiR6VJJ/rOn0C39pJ+2IkJuU61uRyk UwZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVmua1Rtfj4bHPf/2a+qkA/eDgvdWIIi/Ca102i75uW4pwNWA5A uqKCaCy7t8hzVMcYYohGcNYQjsyv3an17AL5D4DMHhPT
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzeeGEL1fHsaJKQAN+j6W3y5sx+bRqiGfKiPeEUEyXXWMzWnuOu+jf6NIGvok8buAgdMaY9RE0OSI+GpohtCgY=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:460a:: with SMTP id t10mr6649839pga.354.1554396415758; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 09:46:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 18:46:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAdgstTk7+G4cFE5wepXxS4xiJMA_hX7R=NGHvEoawpSKYg75Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: 6tisch@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003396060585b71e22"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/676O-xcWvHxRLjL-sSHQswS3mCk>
Subject: [6tisch] Review on draft-tiloca-6tisch-robust-scheduling-01
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: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 16:47:01 -0000

Hello Authors,

I just reviewed the draft. It reads pretty good for me! I only found a tiny
typo error in Eq.1 where the 'c' is not defined actually, I believe you
mean 'chOff'.

Besides, I have two questions referring the usage of minimal cell.

1. What if the selective jamming applied on the minimal cell? Do you
consider to resolve this case?

2. The joining traffic is going on  minimal cell in slotframe 0. Do you
plan to use some strategy to regulate the traffic on minimal cell? I am
asking this because this is different from what MSF is doing, which send
joining packet over autonomous cell.

Tengfei

-- 
Chang Tengfei,
Pre-Postdoctoral Research Engineer, Inria