Re: [6tisch] 6P and Sf0 issue: Piggybacking data packet with IE confirmation

Qin Wang <> Tue, 08 March 2016 21:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0C0612D5BF for <>; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 13:33:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 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_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 bWpJtp-qaNNF for <>; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 13:33:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1052312D5BD for <>; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 13:33:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s2048; t=1457472825; bh=WpTRzxVzRFPIJk4LSp0s/E0wG2SPy0lIK3DareKc4+w=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=Xao1sV4f+XuQ5uWDfPx9fXewT5rafiyZKekB5ruqqwofHBARnDiJPoBfrI480CCsZ6/iJ5+jsPCYk4VctugqsaBf6r+4baqGieQ+jJEbwr5nlBatcWaWmXRVYDC9UoLrrBUx7G3MwdwX8BPZaJAIkMCBhJyVsBofzoD/XSh6vQNzUvO0cLTupW7D4cBRQ9UMyRPcGDVobX+PXneXuZ3+PFz/gFSSOm5VuUXwibeJ5FlixPtlmx3F9XBitkntLI2V0JD+D8fWtTjD34vcbjKy8FTZuKun33Fa6ioFC4Q877VRyRtJsb9Pp7yeKtP0encZ2VVCwTXzt8MfHgUUkaCwAw==
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 08 Mar 2016 21:33:45 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 08 Mar 2016 21:33:45 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 08 Mar 2016 21:33:45 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: pGlCld8VM1njkKcak0.x0OqRcLChDyJ1Z58vlbo6.FoDPdmY1I9f1w68RZeInB3 2X04eeGAaGjqd_Yj2.WWMNbPFJVbbzf7LTjOtsgfBUF4Idj4H2sQWIlcKEfjTj6DGOx3_Frrjdxi 19x4DYwHnPjzuj9wxvOUyKSidXfwInmfHocoblaqwOkgfdWNIBWMlwZ8yrlM6CDxNP742MTCcpA3 Y1DIrNNb6AzKgNWnfbtxT8XI.pii4YGx.PXy1mDVsBG9MHeupryP7_YPVdlFK3KLV_gZL4yy8yrr XLctRSiQTfmJRWMWINkSQGJ0gpFua4xjPP8bzTKBmlh40Mc9KesZ3MPR1O.XABHH09EdUyaZfTSG U8RmCQeDFAOYm.df496rgi2SWYkShm.KPVDs.yWg2K5MNm3jKL16J1AY0cumY6GHkEemcUibAoLJ Febv3FmQptojlYc0QChGlZga6qK.bN8pi8cfDowdZaMNdQWEGL_oV1c.OMqhkEukHIdzv4A--
Received: by; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 21:33:44 +0000
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 21:32:54 +0000 (UTC)
From: Qin Wang <>
To: Lijo Thomas <>, "'Prof. Diego Dujovne'" <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <008701d17614$9f0a4950$dd1edbf0$>
References: <008701d17614$9f0a4950$dd1edbf0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_6188683_2133965217.1457472774693"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] 6P and Sf0 issue: Piggybacking data packet with IE confirmation
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Qin Wang <>
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: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 21:33:51 -0000
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 21:33:51 -0000

Hi Diego,
I also have question regarding to the third message, i.e. Child acknowledge. 
In this case, the Child must accept the selected cells in the Parent's message if it received the message. Right? In another word, if the Parent knows the Child has received the message correctly, the Parent can be sure that the selected cells will be added/deleted into/from the Child's schedule. Since the MAC layer ACK can tell Parent the Child has received its message correctly, I think there is no need for the Child to send back the 6P layer Acknowledgement.
Do I miss something?

    On Friday, March 4, 2016 7:51 AM, Lijo Thomas <> wrote:

 #yiv9292455179 #yiv9292455179 -- _filtered #yiv9292455179 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9292455179 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9292455179 {panose-1:2 11 6 3 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9292455179 {panose-1:2 5 6 4 5 5 5 2 2 4;}#yiv9292455179 #yiv9292455179 p.yiv9292455179MsoNormal, #yiv9292455179 li.yiv9292455179MsoNormal, #yiv9292455179 div.yiv9292455179MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv9292455179 a:link, #yiv9292455179 span.yiv9292455179MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9292455179 a:visited, #yiv9292455179 span.yiv9292455179MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9292455179 span.yiv9292455179EmailStyle17 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv9292455179 span.yiv9292455179EmailStyle18 {color:#833C0B;}#yiv9292455179 .yiv9292455179MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv9292455179 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv9292455179 div.yiv9292455179WordSection1 {}#yiv9292455179 Hi Diego,    Do we really require 3 transactions for 6P operations as mentioned.    The second transaction from the parent contains all the required information  for the task.  In case the 2nd packet is lost, the parent will schedule a RX link which will be unutilized for the time being and can be reallocated depending on the scheduling function.  But if the 3rd transaction is lost, the client will allocate the TX link  and will start transmitting packets.  So can we avoid the ACK packet(3rd transaction) from the client, or is there any added benefit.     Thanks & Regards,Lijo Thomas           From: 6tisch [] On Behalf Of Prof. Diego Dujovne
Sent: 03 March 2016 21:11
Subject: [6tisch] 6P and Sf0 issue: Piggybacking data packet with IE confirmation  Dear all,            Given that there is parent preference in cell
selection, a child-initiated transaction triggers a three-stepexchange:1- Child sends request to Parent with whitelist/blacklist of slotoffsets2- Parent selects cells3- Child acknowledges and finishes the transactionThe main idea is to enable an optional Piggybacking of the IE on adata packet to reduce the number of transmitted packets, but thereare latency concerns when the (data) traffic is low.Is it worth to enable this option given the added complexity?Regards,                                Diego Dujovne
Académico Escuela de Ingeniería en Informática y Telecomunicaciones
Facultad de Ingeniería UDP
(56 2) 676 8125
[ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at: 
Facebook: & Twitter: @cdacindia ]

This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email
is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken.
6tisch mailing list