Re: [6tisch] Comment to draft-wang-6tisch-6top-coapie-01.txt

Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu> Fri, 25 September 2015 12:19 UTC

Return-Path: <twatteyne@gmail.com>
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 1EEC01B310B for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 05:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 28pAGfFHz_bQ for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 05:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com (mail-wi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]) (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 314341B310A for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 05:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wiclk2 with SMTP id lk2so19426527wic.0 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 05:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=3kjoJO0dQutWF239DMf86zeLbpSB2jX+za7oox0KIug=; b=VXJmfqwmh2C99hhB/+RSEEMe+rBtLcBoH1fqDeRNdlXAMTkKccWzX7Cfep5e7t5ZEi OMbDEjxSBuEfV2nU5K+NX2br/iZ1YrT1f0gKToiLoPoVEYejb1SAHAeR5UdoGQja927u FqkOp6FPSFYZHggKgDGB0Z67is1E5rbQ1NeIjmlWl8txQsjkIgQqcLvMr0mG86iQo1E9 4jaeaslFEtbCT/cyPsEMRlt/YVrSliKdPsxMm/IU55EprsB8mL2YHKXM+4lDH1SaoOof M1seygH0WDXw9KrDUacYHlrPAM/GE5ZCmIBBo8R0QRocqDwTYaL5/tH3GNyBoK2GHdZk Litg==
X-Received: by 10.194.191.164 with SMTP id gz4mr5930097wjc.21.1443183544754; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 05:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: twatteyne@gmail.com
Received: by 10.28.25.199 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 05:18:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <22021.14192.385465.57972@fireball.acr.fi>
References: <21934.16929.897976.905775@fireball.acr.fi> <50838770.1280677.1437661723389.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <CADJ9OA-n9jtP1P75zhP0TyCPiHOoFb0z9EKbM0tHYaHKaAHjnA@mail.gmail.com> <22021.14192.385465.57972@fireball.acr.fi>
From: Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 14:18:44 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 694stYSSWRgzVwQWObF48HniZh0
Message-ID: <CADJ9OA_1XbJLcNzAbsO7bH9GwT3zKSwhiEobqFo0wKt8K403NA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7ba9821287e6fa0520915a48"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/82fvq_PtA89u_wBuhcxTt8gS--4>
Cc: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] Comment to draft-wang-6tisch-6top-coapie-01.txt
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: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 12:19:08 -0000

Tero,

I'm cautious in embracing a standard without understanding benefits and
overhead:

Where can I download the 802.15.9 spec? All I can find is
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-roll-3.pdf

What is the scope of 802.15.9? It is presented as a Key Management
solution, yet you suggest to use 802.15.9's mechanisms for (i) IE space and
(ii) fragmentation. It looks to me like we would be exploiting a tiny
fraction of a much more involved standard, but have to include the full
memory footprint.

How much flash/RAM memory is a 802.15.9 implementation?

Thomas


On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> wrote:

> Thomas Watteyne writes:
> > We need to discuss this point urgently, and do the work to ask the
> > IEEE for carve out some IE space for IETF/6TISCH if applicable.
>
> There is Vendor specific IE space for both header and payload IEs.
> Those can be used provided IETF has OUI allocated from RAC. The
> 802.15.9 uses ethertypes, so you can allocate one of ethertypes for
> generic, or you can ask for an number from 802.15.9 specific range.
>
> I think for this the 802.15.9 would be better, as it would also
> provide the fragmentation and multiplexing layer, meaning you are not
> restricted to 127 byte limit.
> --
> kivinen@iki.fi
>