[6tisch] [6TiSCH] return code in 6p response defined in sixtop draft

Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@inria.fr> Fri, 23 September 2016 10:22 UTC

Return-Path: <tengfei.chang@inria.fr>
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 AF45712BBEA for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 03:22:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.715
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.715 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 YEbHoT_i7_fg for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 03:22:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 760BC12D7E4 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 03:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,381,1470693600"; d="scan'208,217";a="237998603"
Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com ([74.125.82.51]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-GCM-SHA256; 23 Sep 2016 12:22:49 +0200
Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id l132so21435728wmf.1 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 03:22:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RlaOw5TZgObZYsxzNvme0Wolxqcye+/SX7nMaKj2RagYbqwUbbRIunIisBzlrqy3yNmvCblreAMobPRPA==
X-Received: by 10.28.187.4 with SMTP id l4mr1949993wmf.124.1474626169730; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 03:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.199.71 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 03:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@inria.fr>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:22:49 +0200
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAAdgstQ=dvdU7PYZLts7=mRyXowS5_zCh7dFndwEhOdT5yuRMg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAdgstQ=dvdU7PYZLts7=mRyXowS5_zCh7dFndwEhOdT5yuRMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114b07d405fe96053d2a2998"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/EhW_BBvA9B6am7vNJbjDWFt4RC0>
Subject: [6tisch] [6TiSCH] return code in 6p response defined in sixtop draft
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 23 Sep 2016 10:27:18 -0000

Dear all,


I have some question about the return code (mainly about the ERROR code) in
6p response packet define in the draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol-02

In figure 7:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol-02#section-4.2.4

 Return Code              Value          Description
   +--------------+------------------------+---------------------------+
   | RC_SUCCESS   | IANA_6TOP_RC_SUCCESS   | operation succeeded       |
   +--------------+------------------------+---------------------------+
   | RC_ERR_VER   | IANA_6TOP_RC_ERR_VER   | unsupported 6P version    |
   +--------------+------------------------+---------------------------+
   | RC_ERR_SFID  | IANA_6TOP_RC_ERR_SFID  | unsupported SFID          |
   +--------------+------------------------+---------------------------+
   | RC_ERR_GEN   | IANA_6TOP_RC_ERR_GEN   | schedule generation error |
   +--------------+------------------------+---------------------------+
   | RC_ERR_BUSY  | IANA_6TOP_RC_ERR_BUSY  | handling previous request |
   +--------------+------------------------+---------------------------+
   | RC_ERR_NORES | IANA_6TOP_RC_ERR_NORES | not enough resources      |
   +--------------+------------------------+---------------------------+
   | RC_ERR_RESET | IANA_6TOP_RC_ERR_RESET | abort 6P Transaction      |
   +--------------+------------------------+---------------------------+
   | RC_ERR       | IANA_6TOP_RC_ERR       | generic error             |
   +--------------+------------------------+---------------------------+
   | reserved     | TODO-0xf               |                           |
   +--------------+------------------------+---------------------------+


As it defined a lots of error return code and also it has generic error:
RC_ERR.


   - When should the nodes use the generic RC_ERROR? I assume it indicates
   the request cells are not available (the cell is occupied already when
   adding OR can't find the cell when deleting)?
   - Also, if the 6p response has multiple cases matched (for example, the
   candidate cells are occupied RC_ERROR and also no enough resource
   ERROR_NORES...), which one should the mote choose? (add priority for the
   error code? at least we need a decision)


Looking forward to talk to you during the meeting soon!

Tengfei

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