[6tisch] 6P and Sf0 issue: 6top protocol behaviour at boot

"Prof. Diego Dujovne" <diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl> Thu, 03 March 2016 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl>
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 5C50E1A21AE for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:12:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.924
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.924 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AC_DIV_BONANZA=0.001, BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_DBL_ABUSE_BOTCC=2.5] 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 03-vDlhfN7nS for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:12:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x229.google.com (mail-wm0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::229]) (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 555EC1A1EF1 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:12:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x229.google.com with SMTP id p65so41829003wmp.1 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 08:12:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mail-udp-cl.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=SuRpfE2X1aHQI4AslB3BfYE9pMuMlH9EHWWHwitoG2g=; b=kYh1gOw+FTTfImBiVnOpcMobrlwv2Yib/JwaMSkjz6Aa7B1EE3KTfEuf8nOGwGiNJP u3DjcTTXbV+RmkbpGC+LXVkl5Hl1OYZcA9UCJof2gtrtkQkzUcuTmQ2YNnFZaNA+1vhB Ez9V9ftxWitTyH6i36GuHBSJNZFRQe3xWs7X0M90rDTD+yBLn9HkFuq4HsGYf2dSnemh Fyl0snSQZAl6rbI5X27QJyZXcZDajaIoPDWsDl4O/v0FFKC/UU28tPbJdNHVEsRj3fzT StThAIdtKuDfz6ym5Alx1l8a/DHzkeaNpTTdK1hKUvm+tcUdnYaMr4XXD1M3Xo1UDZs6 SPFg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=SuRpfE2X1aHQI4AslB3BfYE9pMuMlH9EHWWHwitoG2g=; b=cZkzuKmsIe2doogHVhJEjn+JZRGbkFkMzWMtnCS4p1VnSaM+wmEbohFeGdZTMpFfDl +oT4uyXPgxM3Aa+0xE+Nd40WiKo8HOGWxc+HJ0sXs29F9zPhjw867tlwn5608NCQS/Es uo9EIX8rFclqr7382qtP1tl8xJdfiareC15CPMXpVjXXkywMOqERGA0qmzbt51CEwLGj JzAeGo0Nh1qt12vPryQkbYQPpWEwY7D9g/JPMek2Qwxuoc/AtkYaPZzN5uc5KO9CgJrf utKrp7rkJ5YcMP3KmwPGY4uhnNUO8Bq8t4k+yBg5fVlYL1aU3BNIcO9Z9PzRuGOuiW/u HZcw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKsZFU6NGSOW2NtEsDpFIkon0lRh90zZ8CrRRHXVXqhQPBSJ4BHAYpbBpu9+iQfOITX/c/AEAOoAPyY3w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.103.198 with SMTP id fy6mr4470461wjb.48.1457021538220; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 08:12:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.28.11.195 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:12:18 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 13:12:18 -0300
Message-ID: <CAH7SZV-wE=mhNm9DM6_xigGeGQD352XjNzNc=c7JewHvUvBxbw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Prof. Diego Dujovne" <diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl>
To: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f64733f3754f7052d274308
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/LLceks9ABCdyCkd6deIjK6LD97w>
Subject: [6tisch] 6P and Sf0 issue: 6top protocol behaviour at boot
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: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 16:12:22 -0000

Dear all,
            Although it was discussed, there is no specification
on the 6top behaviour at boot. The discussion point here is if the
6top messages shall be transmitted on minimal cells until
the slotframe 1 (SFR1) has been populated enough to support
the transactions.
          - The use of minimal is optional. In case minimal is used,
the decision on when to switch is out of scope?
          - In case minimal is not used, shall we specify another
mechanism to enable 6top to transmit messages?
Thanks!
Regards,

                                             Diego Dujovne

-- 
DIEGO DUJOVNE
Académico Escuela de Ingeniería en Informática y Telecomunicaciones
Facultad de Ingeniería UDP
www.ingenieria.udp.cl
(56 2) 676 8125