Re: [6tisch] Typeof sixtop subIE:short or long

Qin Wang <qinwang6top@yahoo.com> Mon, 11 January 2016 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <qinwang6top@yahoo.com>
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 800DA1A911F for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:04:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_55=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 w7y6mzHKVOiB for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:04:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nm5-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm5-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [98.139.213.150]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 561621A9147 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:04:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1452546285; bh=Idn+7/nwHCseluUtUchP9q1JGV5FcWjRz8Brap42v8Q=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=DsSKX6eqqNYsb7QyZp99tATRp9lJkBxZDoVG8rYURd3vB9s4uh9mCPawrug9FtFA0s3fSRa/gD2g7o5vQ3/68snPW+OB9zJ6PCy4MroRRY7kK/aH3uIJjvWuzm8W2Hzmmvpq7Rdlx2H4dSMYFM6oz28i8oIecobI3uHHV9I+/vrysJ6MhNM92shUh6dJUPqfrcLDu906qaQyxDpeBqnyYxPbSJrLpZu+6tKan+sGDhiEigS2EySoQK9cnBQS0HVxncc5oLpZdhMOPzF9L8DsLt0mmSstUqHI7lkV5U+OHfv2T24X0zEbVy+cwM0Mi3NFcgv6nZ8zje019GQ7kugBfw==
Received: from [98.139.170.181] by nm5.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jan 2016 21:04:45 -0000
Received: from [98.139.212.236] by tm24.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jan 2016 21:04:45 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1045.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jan 2016 21:04:45 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 323469.1652.bm@omp1045.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
X-YMail-OSG: V3T3JpAVM1mJt4w4qyo8WLIT1FbDlilJXl5PF_sxJnuHA2SanDcd_AjQ1wM_txb M4awxLFJPRIUfguMhWGk6tHhX.cYEndiZHV14_wDuxiROTXl6TUIgZqWNy4tGeayAf593WMejAtK bzei2701MobEiRMFQale9uV_y31Di4AT.5gcpKgjPL5GTsWN0zr7b3mgYsfexRt_9USQMdZcwvG3 yVGF5iyYwk0SbdBKvo6Hg43K2GHLtDaf7qFsES_d5uvDxBlYERjSd92aTMMFP52ejLmTnlhJFlF8 4s0324tRpqlfv1i08RWZ9sI2h2Anye1bvW7KLw5x4o1toScUFk7zRt0EcnlJmAOW.Zv5yLS48Qpg b0s4nzlzsNcacOcj5j61s90s.fwOabzryUqUlK0a5yBFiDsWieogLyRs._rGYVbBTQIRfxx1d48g PC.E15ryY.jiKw6mnW66nPEI9hzkFkDPeo1j3B2lvilYLqTmvTrBuAWleLP1EWDHEFGM5uvXnAkG 09A--
Received: by 66.196.81.109; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:04:44 +0000
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:04:43 +0000
From: Qin Wang <qinwang6top@yahoo.com>
To: thejaswi Chandrashekhar <c.thejaswi@samsung.com>, Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <645244049.3673071.1452546283479.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <86A12C46-388F-4099-9347-C7EAEF123E4B@kinneyconsultingllc.com>
References: <86A12C46-388F-4099-9347-C7EAEF123E4B@kinneyconsultingllc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_3673070_1833093673.1452546283448"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/QX-jCL_P2cEEurTHZgve2oBshkY>
Cc: Palattella Maria Rita <6tisch@ietf.org>, Plugtests <Plugtests.Plugtests@etsi.org>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] Typeof sixtop subIE:short or long
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Qin Wang <qinwang6top@yahoo.com>
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: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:04:50 -0000

I think both of the two format are fine. But, if IEEE802.15 recommends the second one, I think we should choose the second.
ThanksQin 

    On Monday, January 11, 2016 11:17 AM, "pat.kinney@kinneyconsultingllc.com" <pat.kinney@kinneyconsultingllc.com> wrote:
 

 Thank you for the figures, I agree on both, especially the second one.  The advantages of the recommended approach are: one octet shorter for case of single subtype ID and 256 available subtype ID addresses for any length.
Sincerely, Pat
On 11, Jan2016, at 9:19, Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Pat, all,
I would like to make sure whether this format will be the right format for the plugtest and everyone will agree. The attached is the document 15-15-0939-02.
There are two options for the format we will use in the plugtest:
1. we use what defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-sublayer-04, which use the format defined in IEEE802.15.4e-2012, section 5.2.4.3 (page 81). If we decide to use this one, we need short/ long type of the subIE.


| Bits: 0-10 | 11-14 | 15 | Octets: 2 | 32-35 | 36-39 | 40-47 | Octets | Bits: 0-10 | 11-14 | 15 |
| Payload IE Content Length | Group ID | Type (0b1) | Length | Sub-type ID | Type | Ver | Code | SFID | other field
 | Length 
(0x00) | Group ID (0xf) | Type (0b1) |
| Payload IE | Payload IE Content | Payload Termination IE |



2. we use what define in document 15-15-0939-02, which use the format defined in last page of the document:For example the 6P command defined in sublayer draft:
the payload will be:

| Bits: 0-10 | 11-14 | 15 | 16-23 | 24-27 | 28-31 | 32-39 | octets | Bits: 0-10 | 11-14 | 15 |
| Payload IE Content Length | Group ID | Type (0b1) | Sub-type ID | Ver | Code | SFID | other field | Length 
(0x00) | Group ID (0xf) | Type (0b1) |
| Payload IE | Payload IE Content | Payload Termination IE |


Do we agree on the second one?
Tengfei
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com> wrote:

I see. Thanks a lot Pat for the information! I found the document you mentioned. I will update the format in the Golden Images. 
Have a good day!Tengfei
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:25 PM, pat.kinney@kinneyconsultingllc.com <pat.kinney@kinneyconsultingllc.com> wrote:

Tengfei;
The IEEE 802.15 IG 6T recommended a format for sub-IEs in document 15-15-0939-02 sent to this reflector on 30 November 2015.  The following is an excerpt from that document:"Accordingly,the IEEE 802.15 IG 6T recommends that the IETF use an alternate scheme that restrictseach Payload IE to only one sub-type ID and content, i.e. no nesting.  The advantages of this recommended scheme is thatit eliminates one octet from the total Payload IE, it allows a full 256sub-type IDs, and each sub-type length can be up to 2046 octets.”Therefore, if 6tisch adopts the above recommendation, there would be no long or short types.
Pat
Pat KinneyKinney Consulting LLCIEEE 802.15 WG vice chair, SC chairISA100 co-chair, ISA100.20 chairO: +1.847.960.3715pat.kinney@kinneyconsultingllc.com
On 8, Jan2016, at 10:14, Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all, 
As I mentioned on the Call, the 6top sublayer draft seems didn't  define the type of subIE used by 6P command ,long or short type?  Let me know if I missed it from the draft! Thanks you!  
Regard, Tengfei
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
6tisch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch










<15-15-0939-02-0000-IETF_6tisch_IE_Information.docx>

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