Re: [6tisch] #35 (architecture): Last call comments: editorial
"S.V.R. Anand" <anand@ece.iisc.ernet.in> Fri, 24 April 2015 08:26 UTC
Return-Path: <anand@ece.iisc.ernet.in>
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 2F59D1B35E9 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 01:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.001
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, MANGLED_LIST=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 wVeEquy4J-vD for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 01:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SNT004-OMC2S47.hotmail.com (snt004-omc2s47.hotmail.com [65.54.61.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1440F1B35CC for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 01:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SNT406-EAS399 ([65.55.90.72]) by SNT004-OMC2S47.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.22751); Fri, 24 Apr 2015 01:25:44 -0700
X-TMN: [8UP+aRnPJ8MGNcF1p5HFEJKi92AcTLWF]
X-Originating-Email: [anand@ece.iisc.ernet.in]
Message-ID: <SNT406-EAS399A7E0596219C8C23D1E27ACEC0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_bcd1707f-f622-43f6-91cf-d3e34da59aea_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
From: "S.V.R. Anand" <anand@ece.iisc.ernet.in>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 13:54:09 +0530
Sender: outlook_65e7ac5769f63b49@outlook.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Apr 2015 08:25:44.0345 (UTC) FILETIME=[420AD890:01D07E68]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/Zw_8sdfQSM5DA4LLLQbeclsGjr4>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] #35 (architecture): Last call comments: editorial
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 24 Apr 2015 08:26:21 -0000
Pascal, Sure! Agreed. Anand ________________________________ From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)<mailto:pthubert@cisco.com> Sent: 24-04-2015 13:18 To: S.V.R. Anand<mailto:anand@ece.iisc.ernet.in>; 6tisch@ietf.org<mailto:6tisch@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [6tisch] #35 (architecture): Last call comments: editorial Hello Anand: Anything we add to the daft must be discussed and agreed upon in the calls and the ML. So I cannot just add stuff now, but please introduce the discussion to the ML for volume 2! Cheers, Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: 6tisch [mailto:6tisch-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of S.V.R. Anand > Sent: vendredi 24 avril 2015 07:57 > To: 6tisch@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [6tisch] #35 (architecture): Last call comments: editorial > > Hi, > > As my observation on the possibility of including application-in-the-loop as part > of the architecture appears along with the list of other comments, I guess it may > be considered in the subsequent editions of the draft, if found important. If it > has already been addressed in the present draft itself, perhaps I would have > missed the relevant text ! > > There are no other comments from my side. > > Anand > > > On 04/23/2015 10:41 AM, Shwetha Bhandari (shwethab) wrote: > > Hello Reviewers, > > > > With -07 the authors and I (as the shepherd of this draft) believe all > > the comments have been addressed. > > I will close this ticket and proceed with the submission of the draft > > for IESG review by end of this week (25th April). Please respond if > > you think there are unaddressed comments. > > > > Thanks, > > Shwetha > > > > On 4/7/15 9:07 PM, "6tisch issue tracker" <trac+6tisch@tools.ietf.org> > > wrote: > > > >> #35: Last call comments: editorial > >> > >> > >> Comment (by pthubert@cisco.com): > >> > >> Replying to [ticket:35 shwethab@Š]: > >>> '''Chonggang:''' > >>> > >>> · pp. 3, 2nd paragraph, ³Šcontrol operations such industrial > >> automationŠ² ---> ³³Šcontrol operations such as industrial > >> automationŠ² > >>> · pp.3, 3rd paragraph, ³ŠtimeSlotted Channel Hopping Š² ---> > >> ³ŠTime Slotted Channel HoppingŠ² > >>> · pp.3, 4th paragraph, the fulling spelling of TSN was givning > >> in the 2nd paragraph. Then, please put the acronym TSN in the 2nd > >> paragraph > >>> · pp.3, both ³deterministic² and ³Deterministic² are used in a > >> few places. Better use one form if they mean the same thing > >> throughout the draft. > >>> · pp.4, 2nd paragraph ³Route Computation may be achieved in a > >> centralized fashion by a Path Computation Element (PCE), in a > >> distributed fashion using the Routing Protocol for Low Power and > >> Lossy Networks (RPL) [RFC6550], or in a mixed mode², > >>> o Is RPL claim to be a distributed route computation? I believe in > >> the > >> non-storing mode, the root calculates the route and use source > >> routing to route the packet to the destination. > >>> · pp.4, last two paragraphs from the bottom and a few other > >> place in the draft, ³Šneighbor DiscoveryŠ² ---> ³Š Neighbor > >> DiscoveryŠ² > >>> · pp. 5, section 3, 1st paragraph, ³Some aspects of this > >> architecture derive from existing industrial standards for Process > >> Control by its focus on Deterministic Networking, in particular with > >> the use of the IEEE802.15.4e [IEEE802154e] TSCH MAC and a centralized > >> PCE.² > >>> o What are the ³existing industrial standard²? WirelessHart? Certain > >> references would help. > >>> · pp.6, the title of Figure could be more complete by saying > >> something like ³Figure 1, Basic Configuration of 6TiSCH Network² > >>> · pp. 6, the paragraph under Fig. 1, ³neighbor Devices² ---> > >> ³neighbor devices² > >>> · pp.6, 2nd paragraph from the bottom, ³LLN Border Router > >> (LBR)² > >> were mentioned twice in one sentence. > >>> · pp.8, Figure 3, suggest changing its title to ³6TiSCH > >> Protocol > >> Stack² > >>> · pp.8, Figure 3, ³6LoWPAN HC² shows between IPv6 and 6top. It > >> is correct but it could imply that only HC is used there which is > >> not true. Suggest changing 6LoWPAN HC to something like ³6LoWPAN (e.g. > >> adaptation, header compression)² > >>> · pp.9, the 4th paragraph, ³join process² was introduced all of > >> a sudden. Wonder if it could read more smoothly by briefly mentioning > >> these concepts (e.g. neighbor discovery, join process, track > >> reservation, 6top, packet forwarding, etc.) together and their > >> relationship from architectural perspective somewhere in Section 4 > >> (e.g. at the beginning?). > >>> · pp.9, 3rd paragraph, ³TEAS protocol will be required to > >> expose > >> the device capabilities and the network peerings to the PCE, and a > >> protocol such as a lightweight PCEP or an adaptation of CCAMP G-MPLS > >> formats and procedures will be used to publish the tracks, computed > >> by the PCE, to the devices.² > >>> · Can you put the reference about ³TEAS² and ³CCAMP²? > >>> · pp.10, 2nd paragraph, ³should be portable only other LLN link > >> types². It reads a little awkward and maybe some words missing around > >> ³only² > >>> · pp.10, 2nd paragraph, ³A new version of the standard is > >> expected in 2015². What¹s ³the standard² refer to? > >>> · pp.10, 4th paragraph, do you want to add a reference for > >> ISA100.20? > >>> · pp.16, 4th paragraph, ³motes² was used. Can we change it to > >> devices or nodes to make terms more consistent? > >>> · pp.17, 2nd paragraph, ³but also allows an upper layer like > >> RPL.² This sentence seems not finished > >>> · pp.18, 2nd paragraph, ³that is is not capable of². One ³is² > >> should be removed. > >>> · pp.19, the last paragraph, ³an higher layer² ---> ³a higher > >> layer² > >>> · pp.19, the last paragraph, ³DSCP can therefore be used². > >> Suggest giving the full spelling and reference to DSCP or removing > >> this sentence. > >>> · pp.19, 5th paragraph, ³A 6TISCH Instance is associated to one > >> slotFrame.², > >>> · Wonder what is a 6TiSCH Instance? Why associate to only ³one² > >> Slotframe? In previous paragraph, it mentions ³Multiple slotFrames > >> can coexist in a node schedule². > >>> · pp.21, section 9, both ³Static Scheduling² and ³Minimal > >> Static > >> Scheduling² are used. Are they the same? > >>> · pp.22, 1st paragraph, ³This scheduled can be² ---> ³This > >> schedule can be² > >>> · pp.24, section 10.1, 1st paragraph, ³A bundle of cells set to > >> receive (RX-cells) is uniquely paired to a bundle of cells that are > >> set to transmit (TX-cells), representing a layer-2 forwarding state > >> that can be used regardless of the network layer protocol.² > >>> · Is a Track uni-directional or bi-directional? Is there any > >> ACK > >> for the transmission? > >>> · pp.27, Figure 6, suggest adding what is the value ³set dmac > >> to² and ³restore dmac² > >>> · pp.27, section 10.1.3, 1st paragraph, ³If the tunnel egress > >> point does not have a MAC address that matches the configuration, the > >> Track installation fails.², > >>> · Wonder if it is ingress point or egress point that installs > >> the Track > >>> · pp.30, 1st paragraph, ³Centralized routes can for example > >> computed². The word ³be² was missing. > >>> · pp.30, section 11, it will be helpful if the difference > >> between routing discussed in this section and forwarding discussed in > >> section 10 could be clarified a little bit > >>> > >>> ---- > >>> > >>> > >>> Anand: > >>> > >>> > >>> There is just one observation which I could not resist mentioning. > >>> It > >> has to do with > >>> the coupling of real-time application demands with the rest of the > >> architecture. There could be > >>> application specific "time critical and sudden" events that might > >>> call > >> for on-demand resource allocation. > >>> While we can delegate such an event handling to NME and PCE, > >>> perhaps, > >> bringing in an application awareness > >>> to the overall architecture might be useful so that we are not > >>> leaving > >> out this possible scenario. > >>> ---- > >>> > >>> > >>> Maria Rita: > >>> pag 8 LLN odes -> LLN nodes > >>> pag. 19 6TISCH -> 6TiSCH > >>> pag 23 as started -> has started > >>> pag 19 in the definition of CDU matrix, I would specify height and > >> width, and after the timeslot duration (in the current version > >> timeslot duration is in the middle, and it makes a bit hard to read > >> and clearly understand the CDU matrix structure) > >>> pag 7 are we sure we want to mention in the next round of the > >>> document > >> we will have evaluated PANA applicability? we may need/want to > >> publish the second part of the architecture before that, we don¹t > >> know yet. So, we could skip that, if you agree. > >>> > >>> ---- > >>> > >>> Rouhollah: > >>> > >>> Page 7 first paragraph. LLN odes > >>> Page 9 end of third paragraph. foster > >>> > >>> 1-Do registration phase may work properly when network builds up, if > >> when RPL tree grows up and extends like a complete tree (I mean in > >> distributed manner). Maybe some additional controls needed later? > >>> 2-Do you think DICE(figure 3. page 7) should be defined in the > >> Terminology draft. > >>> Typos: > >>> Page 21. scheduled > >>> > >>> > >>> ---- > >>> > >>> Guillaume: > >>> > >>> 1) The term reallocation/relocation of cells : > >>> 8.1 p16 a cell reallocation > >>> differs from > >>> 9.2 p22 the relocation of a soft cell / relocation is done => I am > >>> not sure if there has been a discussion on this term, but I > >> vote > >> for reallocation. > >>> 2) 8.2 p16 a set of quality metrics (RSSI, LQI) I think you cannot > >>> be specific to just two metrics (RSSI, LQI). > >>> The words "a set of" allows to define more metrics. And I think it > >>> is > >> fine. > >>> => what do you think of : "a set of quality metrics (e.g. RSSI, LQI, > >> etc.) " ? > >>> 3) 8.2 p16 and used to compute a Rank Increment The statistics of > >>> 6top may have other usages than incrementing the > >> ranks, for upper layers, and for resource management. > >>> => what about : "and used for instance to compute" ? > >>> > >>> 4) 10.2 p28 : a degree of flow control base on => I think it should > >>> be > >> "based on". > >>> 5) (Already pointed out) 11 p 30 Centralized routes con for example > >> computed => be computed > >>> > >>> ---- > >>> > >>> Jonathan Simon: > >>> 13 - Sending link-layer frames in the clear in the initial stage of > >> joining is not providing any benefit. We should always use > >> authentication, even if the key is not secret, as it provides the > >> ability to reject similar frames from other 802.15.4-based protocols. > >> It also isn¹t necessary to discuss such a detail here. > >>> 13.1 - > >>> * "Triage" - So the JCE decides which nodes are more important and > >> assigns resources to them first? How? Note this term is not used in > >> draft-richardson-6tisch-security-architecture-02. > >>> * "arbitrage" should be ³arbitrate² > >>> > >>> Other than that, it seem to be capturing the overall spirit of the > >> security architecture and highlights the open areas of security > >> discussion, e.g. that PANA is an open issue. > >>> Couple minor points: > >>> > >>> 1) Introduction and 3) Application and Goals sections need review. > >>> They > >> kind of wander all over the place. > >>> 5.1) What does "volume" mean in this context? Is this referring to > >> other > >> as yet defined documents, or later revisions of this document? > >>> > >>> ---- > >>> > >>> Rene: > >>> One note: the second para of Clause 13 seems out of place and should > >>> be > >> removed. > >>> > >>> ---- > >>> > >> > >> > >> Answer > >> ------ > >> > >> I addressed all the comments doing one commit per; and answer on the ML. > >> The list of commits is in > >> https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-ietf-6tisch- > >> architecture/commits/all , each with a diff. > >> > >> I made the following changes; based on Michael's comments > >> > >> Pascal Thubert ae7ea78 07 2015-03-10 https://bitbucket.org/6tisch > >> /draft-ietf-6tisch- > >> architecture/commits/ae7ea789ac066cb6b31fcdf9e6e8fdc2f6cf667e > >> Pascal Thubert 62b2606 06 final 2015-03-09 > >> https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-ietf-6tisch- > >> architecture/commits/62b2606b48d14cb83f4d1d87c600c3f333cc8f66 > >> Pascal Thubert 2b29626 trailing whitespace removal 2015-02-24 > >> https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-ietf-6tisch- > >> architecture/commits/2b296269f964eae8a7d47216ed90cf969c405a9d > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Pascal Thubert 28c6316 Maria-Rita's review 2015-02-24 > >> https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-ietf-6tisch- > >> architecture/commits/28c6316289ff06e21adc340c962acca94277de22 > >> > >> Discussion > >> ---------- > >> > >> typos to be fixed: > >> pag 8 LLN odes -> LLN nodes > >> pag. 19 6TISCH -> 6TiSCH > >> pag 23 as started -> has started > >> > >> -> all fixed > >> > >> Moreover, > >> page 19 in the definition of CDU matrix, I would specify height and > >> width, and after the timeslot duration (in the current version > >> timeslot duration is in the middle, and it makes a bit hard to read > >> and clearly understand the CDU matrix structure) > >> > >> -> text now reads: > >> In order to describe that formatting of time and > >> frequencies, the > >> 6TiSCH architecture defines a global concept that is called > >> a Channel > >> Distribution and Usage (CDU) matrix; a CDU matrix is a matrix of > >> cells with an height equal to the number of available channels > >> (indexed by ChannelOffsets) and a width (in timeSlots) that > >> is the > >> period of the network scheduling operation (indexed by > >> slotOffsets) for > >> that CDU matrix. The size of a cell is a timeSlot duration, and > >> values of 10 to 15 milliseconds are typical in 802.15.4e > >> TSCH to > >> accommodate for the transmission of a frame and an ack, > >> including the > >> security validation on the receive side which may take up > >> to a few > >> milliseconds on some device architecture. > >> > >> pag 7 are we sure we want to mention in the next round of the > >> document we will have evaluated PANA applicability? we may need/want > >> to publish the second part of the architecture before that, we don¹t > >> know yet. So, we could skip that, if you agree. > >> > >> -> I¹d like to leave things open. What about: > >> Future work on 6TiSCH security and will examine in deeper > >> detail how SACM, > >> ACE, DICE, IEEE802.15.9 and eventually PANA and 802.1x may > >> apply to 6TiSCH > >> networks to perform Authentication and Authorization, to > >> secure transactions > >> end-to-end, and to maintain the security posture of a device > >> over its lifetime. > >> The result of that work will be described in a subsequent > >> volume of this > >> architecture. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Pascal Thubert 0e07e72 René Struik's review 2015-02-24 > >> https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-ietf-6tisch- > >> architecture/commits/0e07e721ce096cbd02f93c5cfbf9e58e576ac124 > >> > >> Comments: > >> --------- > >> > >> I removed that section, and added an appendix that lists the 6TiSCH > >> personal submissions that may impact the next volumes. > >> The new text reads as follows > >> > >> Appendix A. Personal submissions relevant to the next volumes > >> > >> This volume only covers a portion of the total work that is needed to > >> cover the full 6TiSCH architecture. Missing portions include > >> Deterministic Networking with Track Forwarding, Dynamic Scheduling, > >> and Security. > >> > >> [I-D.richardson-6tisch-security-architecture] elaborates on the > >> potential use of 802.1AR certificates, and some options for the join > >> process are presented in more details. > >> > >> [I-D.struik-6tisch-security-architecture-elements"] > >> describes 6TiSCH security architectural elements with > >> high level requirements and the security framework that are relevant > >> for the design of the 6TiSCH security solution. > >> > >> [I-D.dujovne-6tisch-on-the-fly] discusses the use of the 6top > >> sublayer [I-D.wang-6tisch-6top-sublayer] to adapt dynamically the > >> number of cells between a RPL parent and a child to the needs of the > >> actual traffic. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Pascal Thubert c34d7eb ChongGang's review 2015-02-24 > >> https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-ietf-6tisch- > >> architecture/commits/c34d7ebf8abb67a51fb94717480fcc5cc931c572 > >> > >> > >> Pascal Thubert 1a72a0f updated 2015-02-24 > >> https://bitbucket.org/6tisch > >> /draft-ietf-6tisch- > >> architecture/commits/1a72a0f578371be194832d6525c1e502e0055b92 > >> > >> Comments > >> -------- > >> > >> Please see below for details: > >> > >> I have reviewed the architecture draft (-05) and support to publish it. > >> > >> A few minor comments I had are listed below. > >> € pp. 3, 2nd paragraph, ³Šcontrol operations such industrial > >> automationŠ² ---> ³³Šcontrol operations such as industrial > >> automationŠ² > >> > >> -> done > >> € pp.3, 3rd paragraph, ³ŠtimeSlotted Channel Hopping Š² ---> > >> ³ŠTime Slotted Channel HoppingŠ² > >> > >> -> Actually I think the group settled for TimeSlotted, I migrated all > >> -> to > >> that > >> > >> € pp.3, 4th paragraph, the fulling spelling of TSN was givning in > >> the 2nd paragraph. Then, please put the acronym TSN in the 2nd > >> paragraph > >> > >> > >> -> It was but I changed the format to be more classical > >> > >> € pp.3, both ³deterministic² and ³Deterministic² are used in a > >> few > >> places. Better use one form if they mean the same thing throughout > >> the draft. > >> > >> -> Done, I used the uppercase because our Deterministic is not the > >> -> one > >> from math > >> > >> € pp.4, 2nd paragraph ³Route Computation may be achieved in a > >> centralized fashion by a Path Computation Element (PCE), in a > >> distributed fashion using the Routing Protocol for Low Power and > >> Lossy Networks (RPL) [RFC6550], or in a mixed mode², > >> o Is RPL claim to be a distributed route computation? I believe in the > >> non-storing mode, the root calculates the route and use source > >> routing to route the packet to the destination. > >> > >> -> I see what you are saying. I agree that storing mode centralized > >> -> the > >> computation of routes down but that¹s based on a parent selection > >> that is still distributed. I do not think that being very specific > >> like ³RPL is mostly distributed but then there can be a bit of > >> centralized computation² will help a lot the understanding of the > >> section. I¹d rather leave it at that. > >> > >> € pp.4, last two paragraphs from the bottom and a few other place > >> in the draft, ³Šneighbor DiscoveryŠ² ---> ³Š Neighbor DiscoveryŠ² > >> > >> -> sure, many occurrences fixed > >> > >> € pp. 5, section 3, 1st paragraph, ³Some aspects of this > >> architecture derive from existing industrial standards for Process > >> Control by its focus on Deterministic Networking, in particular with > >> the use of the IEEE802.15.4e [IEEE802154e] TSCH MAC and a centralized > >> PCE.² > >> o What are the ³existing industrial standard²? WirelessHart? Certain > >> references would help. > >> > >> -> OK, added > >> > >> > >> € pp.6, the title of Figure could be more complete by saying > >> something like ³Figure 1, Basic Configuration of 6TiSCH Network² > >> > >> -> OK > >> > >> € pp. 6, the paragraph under Fig. 1, ³neighbor Devices² ---> > >> ³neighbor devices² > >> > >> -> OK > >> > >> € pp.6, 2nd paragraph from the bottom, ³LLN Border Router (LBR)² > >> were mentioned twice in one sentence. > >> > >> ->reworded > >> > >> € pp.8, Figure 3, suggest changing its title to ³6TiSCH Protocol > >> Stack² > >> > >> -> Yes, I added envisioned since all is not fully cast in stone > >> > >> € pp.8, Figure 3, ³6LoWPAN HC² shows between IPv6 and 6top. It is > >> correct but it could imply that only HC is used there which is not > >> true. > >> Suggest changing 6LoWPAN HC to something like ³6LoWPAN (e.g. > >> adaptation, header compression)² > >> > >> -> added > >> > >> € pp.9, the 4th paragraph, ³join process² was introduced all of a > >> sudden. Wonder if it could read more smoothly by briefly mentioning > >> these concepts (e.g. neighbor discovery, join process, track > >> reservation, 6top, packet forwarding, etc.) together and their > >> relationship from architectural perspective somewhere in Section 4 > >> (e.g. at the beginning?). > >> > >> -> will be hard without duplicating a lot; let me think of that one. > >> -> In > >> any fashion, I can clarify join there. I propose > >> > >> Security is often handled at Layer-2 and Layer 4. Authentication > >> during the process on joining or re-joining the network > >> is discussed in <xref target="sec"/> and the > >> applicability of existing protocols such as > >> the <xref target="RFC5191"> > >> Protocol for Carrying Authentication for Network access > >> (PANA)</xref> > >> will be studied in a next volume of this document. > >> > >> € pp.9, 3rd paragraph, ³TEAS protocol will be required to expose > >> the device capabilities and the network peerings to the PCE, and a > >> protocol such as a lightweight PCEP or an adaptation of CCAMP G-MPLS > >> formats and procedures will be used to publish the tracks, computed > >> by the PCE, to the devices.² > >> € Can you put the reference about ³TEAS² and ³CCAMP²? > >> > >> -> added, text looks like this now: > >> > >> The work on centralized track computation is deferred to a > >> subsequent volume > >> of the architecture. The Path Computation Element (PCE) is > >> certainly > >> the core component of that architecture. Around the PCE, a > >> protocol > >> such as an extension to a TEAS <xref target="TEAS"/> protocol > >> (maybe running over CoAP as illustrated) will be required > >> to expose the > >> device capabilities and the network peers to the PCE, and a > >> protocol > >> such as a lightweight PCEP or an adaptation of CCAMP <xref > >> target="CCAMP"/> > >> G-MPLS formats and procedures will be used to publish the > >> tracks, > >> computed by the PCE, to the devices (maybe in a fashion > >> similar to RSVP-TE). > >> > >> € pp.10, 2nd paragraph, ³should be portable only other LLN link > >> types². It reads a little awkward and maybe some words missing around > >> ³only² > >> > >> ->sure! The text now reads > >> > >> The current charter positions 6TiSCH on IEEE802.15.4 only. > >> Though most of the design should be portable on other link types, > >> 6TiSCH has a strong dependency on 802.15.4 and its evolution. > >> > >> € pp.10, 2nd paragraph, ³A new version of the standard is > >> expected > >> in 2015². What¹s ³the standard² refer to? > >> > >> -> clarified as follows > >> > >> The current charter positions 6TiSCH on IEEE802.15.4 only. > >> Though most of the design should be portable on other link types, > >> 6TiSCH has a strong dependency on IEEE802.15.4 and its evolution. > >> A new version of the IEEE802.15.4 standard is expected in 2015. > >> > >> > >> € pp.10, 4th paragraph, do you want to add a reference for > >> ISA100.20? > >> > >> -> there¹s no good link. I added a link to ISA100, and explained what > >> -> CNM > >> is. > >> > >> > >> ISA100 <xref target="ISA100"/> Common Network Management (CNM) > >> is another > >> external work of interest for 6TiSCH. The group, referred to > >> as ISA100.20, > >> defines a Common Network Management framework that should > >> enable the > >> management of resources that are controlled by heterogeneous > >> protocols > >> such as ISA100.11a <xref target="ISA100.11a"/>, WirelessHART > >> <xref target="WirelessHART"/>, and 6TiSCH. Interestingly, the > >> establishment of 6TiSCH Deterministic paths, called tracks, > >> are also in scope, and ISA100.20 is working on requirements > >> for DetNet. > >> > >> € pp.16, 4th paragraph, ³motes² was used. Can we change it to > >> devices or nodes to make terms more consistent? > >> > >> -> moved to devices, but added the following > >> on behalf of the wireless devices (also called motes), > >> > >> € pp.17, 2nd paragraph, ³but also allows an upper layer like > >> RPL.² > >> This sentence seems not finished > >> > >> -> OK, the sentence now looks like > >> > >> The receiver of the Enhanced Beacon MAY > >> be listening at the cell to get the Enhanced Beacon > >> ([IEEE802154e]). > >> 6top takes this way to establish broadcast channel, > >> which not only > >> allows TSCH to broadcast Enhanced Beacons, but also > >> allows protocol > >> exchanges by an upper layer such as RPL. > >> > >> € pp.18, 2nd paragraph, ³that is is not capable of². One ³is² > >> should be removed. > >> > >> -> ack > >> > >> € pp.19, the last paragraph, ³an higher layer² ---> ³a higher > >> layer² > >> -> ack > >> > >> € pp.19, the last paragraph, ³DSCP can therefore be used². > >> Suggest > >> giving the full spelling and reference to DSCP or removing this sentence. > >> > >> -> I used ŒDifferentiated Services [RFC2474]¹ instead > >> > >> € pp.19, 5th paragraph, ³A 6TISCH Instance is associated to one > >> slotFrame.², > >> > >> -> that¹s really a 6top internal. Much too detailed, I removed the > >> sentence. > >> > >> € Wonder what is a 6TiSCH Instance? Why associate to only ³one² > >> Slotframe? In previous paragraph, it mentions ³Multiple slotFrames > >> can coexist in a node schedule². > >> > >> -> same, that is an internal construct > >> > >> € pp.21, section 9, both ³Static Scheduling² and ³Minimal Static > >> Scheduling² are used. Are they the same? > >> > >> -> removed minimal. Intention was to say that this is the minimal > >> -> support > >> > >> € pp.22, 1st paragraph, ³This scheduled can be² ---> ³This > >> schedule can be² > >> > >> -> gone > >> > >> € pp.24, section 10.1, 1st paragraph, ³A bundle of cells set to > >> receive (RX-cells) is uniquely paired to a bundle of cells that are > >> set to transmit (TX-cells), representing a layer-2 forwarding state > >> that can be used regardless of the network layer protocol.² > >> € Is a Track uni-directional or bi-directional? Is there any ACK > >> for the transmission? > >> > >> -> I added > >> > >> A Track is a unidirectional path between a source and a > >> destination. > >> In a Track cell, the normal operation of IEEE802.15.4e > >> Automatic Repeat-reQuest (ARQ) usually happens, though the > >> acknowledgment may be omitted in some cases, for > >> instance if there > >> is no scheduled cell for a retry. > >> > >> € pp.27, Figure 6, suggest adding what is the value ³set dmac to² > >> and ³restore dmac² > >> > >> -> done > >> > >> € pp.27, section 10.1.3, 1st paragraph, ³If the tunnel egress > >> point does not have a MAC address that matches the configuration, the > >> Track installation fails.², > >> € Wonder if it is ingress point or egress point that installs the > >> Track > >> > >> I think the text is correct. The configuration of the tunnel is yet > >> TBD by this group (RSVP-TE?), but the egress must be able to deliver > >> a packet to the MAC address that is at the end of the tunnel. > >> > >> € pp.30, 1st paragraph, ³Centralized routes can for example > >> computed². The word ³be² was missing. > >> > >> fixed > >> € pp.30, section 11, it will be helpful if the difference between > >> routing discussed in this section and forwarding discussed in section > >> 10 could be clarified a little bit > >> > >> Added > >> By forwarding, this specification means the per-packet > >> operation that > >> allows to deliver a packet to a next hop or an upper layer > >> in this node. > >> Forwarding is based on pre-existing state that was > >> installed as a > >> result of a routing computation. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Pascal Thubert cca7835 Rouhollah's comments 2015-02-23 > >> https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-ietf-6tisch- > >> architecture/commits/cca78350db5d5ad3a8b031944e44ce15972453ae > >> > >> Comments > >> --------- > >> > >> 1-Do registration phase may work properly when network builds up, if > >> when RPL tree grows up and extends like a complete tree (I mean in > >> distributed manner). Maybe some additional controls needed later? > >> > >>> Unsure what you really mean here. There can be issues with security > >>> and > >> the join process work is looking at that. Then there¹s RPL use of > >> slotted aloha slots. Then there¹s the resource allocation problem > >> (chunks between parents and cells in a parent¹s chunk between > >> children). We¹ll recharter for all these things but the first volume > >> of the architecture does not cover that. > >> > >> 2-Do you think DICE(figure 3. page 7) should be defined in the > >> Terminology draft. > >> > >> Well, that¹s a WG now, unsure what the standard name will be. I can > >> add the following text: > >> ³ DTLS In Constrained Environments (DICE) is at the time of this > >> writing the probable way LLN nodes will provide end-to-end > >> security for > >> UDP/CoAP packets.² > >> > >> Typos: > >> Page 21. scheduled > >> > >> Ack > >> > >> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Rouhollah Nabati(Google) > >> <rnabati@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello All, > >> > >> Page 7 first paragraph. LLN odes > >> > >> ack > >> > >> Page 9 end of third paragraph. foster > >> > >> I missed the issue there? > >> > >> > >> > >> I agree with all Guillaume¹s suggested edits. Changes: > >> > >> Pascal Thubert 5c2a38f Guillaume's edits 2015-02-23 > >> https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-ietf-6tisch- > >> architecture/commits/5c2a38ffd0b74695b26551a0ca5b90fd0ab3d7fb > >> > >> -- > >> -------------------------+------------------------------------------- > >> -------------------------+----- > >> - > >> Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-6tisch- > >> shwethab@cisco.com | architecture@tools.ietf.org > >> Type: defect | Status: new > >> Priority: minor | Milestone: > >> Component: | Version: > >> architecture | Resolution: > >> Severity: In WG Last | > >> Call | > >> Keywords: | > >> -------------------------+------------------------------------------- > >> -------------------------+----- > >> - > >> > >> Ticket URL: > >> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6tisch/trac/ticket/35#comment:1> > >> 6tisch <http://tools.ietf.org/6tisch/> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 6tisch mailing list > >> 6tisch@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch > > _______________________________________________ > > 6tisch mailing list > > 6tisch@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch > > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by > MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. > > _______________________________________________ > 6tisch mailing list > 6tisch@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
- [6tisch] #35 (architecture): Last call comments: … 6tisch issue tracker
- Re: [6tisch] #35 (architecture): Last call commen… 6tisch issue tracker
- Re: [6tisch] #35 (architecture): Last call commen… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6tisch] #35 (architecture): Last call commen… Shwetha Bhandari (shwethab)
- Re: [6tisch] #35 (architecture): Last call commen… S.V.R. Anand
- Re: [6tisch] #35 (architecture): Last call commen… S.V.R. Anand
- Re: [6tisch] #35 (architecture): Last call commen… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6tisch] #35 (architecture): Last call commen… Wang, Chonggang
- Re: [6tisch] #35 (architecture): Last call commen… Maria Rita PALATTELLA
- Re: [6tisch] #35 (architecture): Last call commen… Prof. Diego Dujovne
- Re: [6tisch] #35 (architecture): Last call commen… Guillaume Gaillard
- Re: [6tisch] #35 (architecture): Last call commen… 6tisch issue tracker
- Re: [6tisch] #35 (architecture): Last call commen… 6tisch issue tracker