[6tisch] Quick review on draft 15

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Fri, 26 February 2016 10:23 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0EA11A8731 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 02:23:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.206
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w6Ro06nrqMX8 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 02:23:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3488A1A8739 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 02:23:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11634; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1456482191; x=1457691791; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=BTJc4zd1WQBPk0AHOwCSrDDm7TKsnklVhVV/4DNzh44=; b=C7JzR0HJG39VsqK0QtB7TLT4MHB/GNOy0eQIalYLIwcrIX5283Og/qB3 X/LQg3+BtZ7ffnCttLltQsJZ93Da2WGZm9d0JP2Szro6FFHsnHDk7uoI+ HMekcgvihBxlK5LA/Bg4BaDqW5RxJzDZLZ3SQWLNzeO2vC8G76p/YNRb/ I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,498,1449532800"; d="scan'208,217";a="242771686"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 26 Feb 2016 10:23:10 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (xch-rcd-002.cisco.com []) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u1QANABY021733 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 26 Feb 2016 10:23:10 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ( by XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 04:23:09 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 04:23:09 -0600
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Xavi Vilajosana Guillén <xvilajosana@uoc.edu>
Thread-Topic: Quick review on draft 15
Thread-Index: AdFwfw0EIHLSzkC4RpG5cyOp8vZ7hw==
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 10:22:40 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 10:22:37 +0000
Message-ID: <d3b5b1bd4d1b4b32bfa40a071ebe7cc9@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_d3b5b1bd4d1b4b32bfa40a071ebe7cc9XCHRCD001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/P7lLXp5nWa1mqDgULRrvauSN5FY>
Cc: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
Subject: [6tisch] Quick review on draft 15
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, 26 Feb 2016 10:23:13 -0000

Hello Xavi:

I’m not asking for any change change but editorials. In particular I do not see a need to say that minimal could be disabled. Anything can be disabled, it’s always an admin decision to implement a protocol. The important thing is that minimal does not preclude the use of other TSCH traffic on other timeslots.

As I reread the draft, I have some editorial suggestions, feel free to pick or not:

“bitmap in the active cell indicate that a node” -> indicates?
“This results in ‘’Slotted Aloha’’ behavior” -> This results in a behavior that is similar to that of ‘’Slotted Aloha’’.
“acknowledgement” -> acknowledgment
“neighbour” -> neighbor
“EBs MUST NOT be used for time” -> EBs are not used for time
“rank” -> Rank  (when talking about RPL’s Rank)
“Routing extension headers such as RPI and SRH and inner
   IP headers MUST be compressed according to [RFC6282],
   [I-D.ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch] and [I-D.ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch].”
Routing extension headers such as RPI [RFC6550] and SRH [RFC6554], and outer
   IP headers in case on encapsulation MUST be compressed according to
   [I-D.ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch] and [I-D.ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch].

Also: [I-D.ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch] and [I-D.ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch] should be normative references. Should not delay minimal if we last call soon.

Take care,