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

As per 802.15.4-2015, the only time the Payload Termination IE is required is when both the Payload IE and Data Payload are present.  Given that there is no payload following the 6P payload IE, the terminator may be omitted.

Pat

On 18, Jan2016, at 13:19, Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

Sorry to ask question again on the recommends document! I still have a question about why the payload IE is terminated by a termination IE?

According to the IEEE802.15.4e-2012 on section 5.2.4.22.

5.2.4.22 IE List Termination IE
......
 If an unformatted payload follows the Payload IE list, then the payload IE list is terminated with a list termination IE (ID = 0xf) that has a content length of zero. Otherwise the terminator may be omitted

Since there is no payload following the 6P payload IE, the terminator may be omitted. Is there specific reason why we don't do that?
Let me know if this is already discussed somewhere so I can refer to. Thanks!

Regard,
Tengfei

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com <mailto:tengfei.chang@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks all for the comments! Then we will use the recommended format (second one) on the plugtest!

Tengfei

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Qin Wang <qinwang6top@yahoo.com <mailto:qinwang6top@yahoo.com>> wrote:
I think both of the two format are fine. But, if IEEE802.15 recommends the second one, I think we should choose the second.

Thanks
Qin

On Monday, January 11, 2016 11:17 AM, "pat.kinney@kinneyconsultingllc.com <mailto:pat.kinney@kinneyconsultingllc.com>" <pat.kinney@kinneyconsultingllc.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto: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 <mailto:pat.kinney@kinneyconsultingllc.com> <pat.kinney@kinneyconsultingllc.com <mailto: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 restricts each Payload IE to only one sub-type ID and content, i.e. no nesting.  The advantages of this recommended scheme is that it eliminates one octet from the total Payload IE, it allows a full 256 sub-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 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 8, Jan2016, at 10:14, Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch>

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

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

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