Re: [6tisch] OTF: IP or not IP?

Pascal;

I agree with your change, but I wonder why we need to consider only IoT routers?  Shouldn’t we removed the IoT constraint?

Pat

Pat Kinney
Kinney Consulting LLC
IEEE 802.15 WG vice chair, SC chair
ISA100 co-chair, ISA100.20 chair
O: +1.847.960.3715
pat.kinney@kinneyconsultingllc.com <mailto:pat.kinney@kinneyconsultingllc.com>

On 9, Oct2015, at 10:48, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:

Dear all:

Following up on the comments at the interim, My suggestion is to update item 3 as follows:

3. Produce an “On-the-fly" (OTF) specification to enable a distributed dynamic
scheduling of time slots with the capability for IoT routers to appropriate
chunks of the matrix without starving, or interfering with, other 6TiSCH nodes.
This particular work will focus on IP traffic since the work on tracks is not
yet advanced enough to specify their requirements for OTF operations.

I remove the ‘for IP traffic’ within the main text to indicate that the initial focus is
N IP traffic but I hope that now it is more clear that future work on tracks is not precluded.
Does that address the comment?

Cheers,

Pascal

_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
6tisch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch