IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6tsch] terminology draft: quick questions

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Fri, 12 July 2013 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: 6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D672D11E811A for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.973
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.973 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.625, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JmMxej4e02xO for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E337511E8115 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12915; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1373641458; x=1374851058; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=/OXrO+ahsDtEdbl5rupAhzt6Zfu2n6AKZg6AcaDj4EE=; b=QpIO+QdngOkyNY1b2zLrB198RhW+4nE/5i7q00/xRtpwtpO/L1GCtCPC pkUpqb806j5KF+7q7vizLZlCjFKUB8j/p2o8vOtsXW/7X+BoAHDmvMldj 7SnWrvBYRnNQ2djgtQxK3HQT8e5uagaePaUrxIvvjBwHSSfpuO1ZziefR Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjMFAAAa4FGtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABaDoI0RDRPuR+IMoEJFnSCIwEBAQQtQxkCAQgRBAEBCx0HMhQJCAIEARIIiAcMt0CPMC0KAYMLbAOFQ5NCkCSCVD6CKA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.89,653,1367971200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="234063711"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Jul 2013 15:04:17 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6CF4Hol008419 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:04:17 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.35]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:04:16 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu>, 6TSCH <6tsch@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [6tsch] terminology draft: quick questions
Thread-Index: AQHOfwVnHrmVlZCsM0KNJw7XAQNAKplhIKHA
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:04:15 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:04:00 +0000
Message-ID: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD84136FC01@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
References: <CADJ9OA8YUqyFSefpgxd7iurL-mk3sm0EEkNfmaZVkcP+jRUBNg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADJ9OA8YUqyFSefpgxd7iurL-mk3sm0EEkNfmaZVkcP+jRUBNg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.61.107.98]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD84136FC01xmbrcdx01ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [6tsch] terminology draft: quick questions
X-BeenThere: 6tsch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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" <6tsch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tsch>, <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tsch>
List-Post: <mailto:6tsch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch>, <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:04:32 -0000

Hi Thomas:

As an IETF document we can expect that the reader will understand the link as an IP link as opposed to a 802.15.4e one.
Maybe our terminology should refer to existing RFCs and say that we have the same concept. We need to insist that these are one hop things for L3 operations...

RFC 4862


   link -  a communication facility or medium over which nodes can
     communicate at the link layer, i.e., the layer immediately below
      IP.  Examples are Ethernets (simple or bridged); PPP links; X.25,
      Frame Relay, or ATM networks; and Internet (or higher) layer
      "tunnels", such as tunnels over IPv4 or IPv6 itself.  The protocol
      described in this document will be used on all types of links
      unless specified otherwise in the link-type-specific document
      describing how to operate IP on the link in line with [RFC4861].
   interface -  a node's attachment to a link.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-07




   Link

      a communication facility or medium over which nodes can

      communicate at the link layer, i.e., the layer immediately below

      IP.  Examples are Ethernets (simple or bridged), PPP links, X.25,

      Frame Relay, or ATM networks as well as internet (or higher) layer

      "tunnels", such as tunnels over IPv4 or IPv6 itself.

Cheers,

Pascal

From: 6tsch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6tsch-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Watteyne
Sent: vendredi 12 juillet 2013 15:40
To: 6TSCH
Subject: [6tsch] terminology draft: quick questions

Maria Rita,

I'm going over the (draft) terminology draft at https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/draft-palattella-6tsch-terminology/<https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/draft-palattella-6tsch-terminology/wiki/Home> , and see that the term "link" is defined as

"Single-hop connection between two or more devices. It can be dedicated (point-to-point), multi-point, broadcast."

Quick questions:
- do we want to use the term link at all. This raised some conflicts with IETF and IEEE802.15.4e terminology, and we went for "bundle" and "cell". Maybe this "link" refers to a different element?
- in the current definition, what do p-to-p and multi-point mean?

Thanks,
Thomas

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email