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

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>
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> 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"
>> <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 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
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>