[6tisch] Time Synchronization
Oliver Hahm <oliver.hahm@inria.fr> Tue, 09 February 2016 10:36 UTC
Return-Path: <oliver.hahm@inria.fr>
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 25FEA1A886E for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 02:36:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 WxTCRjOlNjZC for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 02:36:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.stillroot.org (mail.stillroot.org [176.9.132.253]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A42A1A8865 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 02:36:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.stillroot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3785841A57 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 11:35:41 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at ba.stillroot.org
Received: from mail.stillroot.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.stillroot.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mMyULjSiz7_H for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 11:35:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hobbykeller.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:638:80a:105:baca:3aff:fe9b:6ced]) by mail.stillroot.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 583B94147F for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 11:35:35 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 11:35:32 +0100
From: Oliver Hahm <oliver.hahm@inria.fr>
To: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20160209103531.GA7336@hobbykeller.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/6xQDaU2Cb-FZR9bmQojpV_Yxa8Y>
Subject: [6tisch] Time Synchronization
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: <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: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:36:14 -0000
Hi! Probably I miss something obvious here, but I just stumbled about two things in RFC7554 and Minimal that seem to be contradicting at a first glance: RFC7554 in A8 states: "Nodes can keep synchronization exclusively by exchanging EBs." However, draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-14 in section 6 states: "EBs MUST NOT be used for time synchronization." Can anyone enlighten me how to interpret this? May EBs be used for time synchronization or not? Cheers, Oleg
- [6tisch] Time Synchronization Oliver Hahm
- [6tisch] Time Synchronization Tero Kivinen