Re: [6tisch] Review on draft-tiloca-6tisch-robust-scheduling-01

Simon Duquennoy <> Thu, 04 April 2019 18:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91650120052 for <>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ehBOqz2RVTCm for <>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::333]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AD6412003F for <>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r186so7969933wmf.1 for <>; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 11:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=U6HCIGQKZvcrcIK8V5AqrhUM/DyM6H4eAlQPUZCNxN4=; b=omXuWCGkDhIIAD6kNspcbrOc+VMpBFZT+hD8M5hLZ0n8QadDvb+7HGa7cwOQ/bQkNb SJNDFcdt3KoyYyXqPGB35QxnJ/KMACC+jQoF37iHSfnUp9bbMwBu7gJGXpRVSUCXfoSz TqtReQXg7BrkpjE7bGGJXjYXqDFIZsblzXk79g7ktXYhC/Xt7jvoNdZf99G0KMoDCXvg BsLQmYoj4c14aXlOTevIPZ+7gQd4wAX4AeDVIV5TBJ/WOWyKqS1P0nLGmwmZ3h8jZIeo uqW4xO5MMcLP8L4qeZZu4yxFmwQJXO9ZqG5GHRSkzxNFIM779ozqf0ENfA6+YDNFIITd ii7w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=U6HCIGQKZvcrcIK8V5AqrhUM/DyM6H4eAlQPUZCNxN4=; b=KnhGZQIOefXpt0mdGGwI3cVvXfujogrtcUXzAa9RJfdftilTSx6vjZPu6/SDFp3Dmh euZ5bnvs+vrLMZTmnrdt/8xjGzPz9zcWG39LdkEsldiAt382V4dIgni475DpExGmgL+7 Z4Q/NSiijvbcTkKlGJ6YDBwTPyblncWRZCsxqkijV+q4/1zVqOpsx1KwZaMeKoGAjFbS AxBkCgPgkXRu9Vt3GijThfO0oGI9jZOOFZF/wzRGZm+o39xaBexJUdzfhORggzS3cLrd pPZsAyB2+BS7WqlipH2mNhk4aY4ZMWwrkeWXCLxGcc36moyef5UriC2prt3XIgh+tXhi RMNQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXVxXr5W+mpICyq7eSBiTQWQytv1bq/XjInlxn/i7A92rOMAEJe +JdCwETMBZIi4Htg9g3OCP8hUURe3nrsdrbAUKU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzOD5jBohzP04jlDCPsHRyLdrXsR/kkMuGiKCqIL5Gqjcfnbps4E7tTL3KPNfXqQ55llQWNv3kNwuDPQr0v7Kk=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:be13:: with SMTP id o19mr4843787wmf.19.1554404090429; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 11:54:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Simon Duquennoy <>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 20:54:39 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Tengfei Chang <>
Cc: 6tisch <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a5c7e00585b8e77c"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 05 Apr 2019 08:08:30 -0700
Subject: Re: [6tisch] Review on draft-tiloca-6tisch-robust-scheduling-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 18:54:55 -0000

Hi Tengfei,

Thanks for these questions.

1. We're not protecting against selective jamming on the minimal cell
indeed. This is a tricky problem, because beacons must include enough
information for nodes to find out when to tx/rx for the join procedure, and
a not-joined-yet node can do it then so can an attacker. Our threat model
is where the attacker is interested in degrading the performance for a
given [set of] node[s] in a running network.

2. This is a great point. We currently know of two approaches, both of
which involve a slight modification of MSF. (a) make MSF use the minimal
cell instead of autonomous for joining or (b) move autonomous cells to a
different slotframe than dedicated cells (e.g. to autonomous to slotframe
0, or dedicated to a new slotframe 2).


On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 6:47 PM Tengfei Chang <>

> Hello Authors,
> I just reviewed the draft. It reads pretty good for me! I only found a
> tiny typo error in Eq.1 where the 'c' is not defined actually, I believe
> you mean 'chOff'.
> Besides, I have two questions referring the usage of minimal cell.
> 1. What if the selective jamming applied on the minimal cell? Do you
> consider to resolve this case?
> 2. The joining traffic is going on  minimal cell in slotframe 0. Do you
> plan to use some strategy to regulate the traffic on minimal cell? I am
> asking this because this is different from what MSF is doing, which send
> joining packet over autonomous cell.
> Tengfei
> --
> Chang Tengfei,
> Pre-Postdoctoral Research Engineer, Inria
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list