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

Simon Duquennoy <> Thu, 04 April 2019 18:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AFC91200F7 for <>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:57:36 -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 6nUeNVUTYGuR for <>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79B571200FD for <>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k17so5084226wrx.10 for <>; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 11:57:33 -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=km2lRwQDY31FMP0M3cPsgc7Vf9haXWrOFt4cnz25sAw=; b=I3nW7Hs16HrmXkJNPoBlpQdoFFOLoEiZRq+wTCRUiV+O9qwHnnq2spCBqRj/E6UMQo h+imueWAcdaWLwN52VTtlHsHDkiOFOnbUTKLFW0ZDIOwyJDGsUvEriKuCRBa0y42Pqpt GxNc+sbSCk/mZZzTLZzaagPYZNBfJaeUgsU8D4n6tdyU4gHLkQ1QY7PsdfkPvYgnoBL+ aG4taJhpYxCMi4AKkN2oKUdy+fPOLc7KPvgRIZ4dxzBn3Gz3pKQ0y8PH1HZ016VGzS7R zzLdSYGapMtc0Dom+OJCKQGLQ8OnftoS/7cod4i8A5lVxVIADmTI5bmJDR0PWPE89Lot JPFw==
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=km2lRwQDY31FMP0M3cPsgc7Vf9haXWrOFt4cnz25sAw=; b=sNtibjDrSRTroGz7Bs/KIAFFri3LVFhNguWfxRDVrm50O07UHtRQg0IaJkW8e/ZBDd 7QyXOX4S0pRIem3FEoyoDk+cTKEuWU10t6O6hqy7mZZxodGBKQEeWnPbbyA9+TYLPSCR C+Bd4vgKuUgVVZU2wkCclHLyFAD7b3mfoVjAi88jXQ6CWqByw65IYhXnqUh45UmEqwWu F1HbPTbcsRJU9nXdQbSSLlN3FL1yldOkPLKvZbtMuIn+56UmnqqnOD+jUDLlc1zdx7hu NgTJt1OUCoFUD7pNCgzSnRr9OqTGyYYCirMQIsuljgnBmhH2nfk688WTm7bqS2XpHWS8 lT/g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXNaJ0gqKlWnvW5mtKeqW3SbSUg92hg0xY+cLPA4nHM8rGqkWfA estXPr19wNiNeFDGraHApgTfZJLHEUon+1GujYk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqySzI+APqtD0RByyYZWHukn4P6Wyh/O+i5iLd+IIFtuCbU6gTrxVMVPmGO/zm1UdX775g72kGs458hbTRyvZb4=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4a8d:: with SMTP id o13mr5143528wrq.209.1554404251962; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 11:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Simon Duquennoy <>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 20:57:21 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Tengfei Chang <>
Cc: 6tisch <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004696bd0585b8f1ca"
Archived-At: <>
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 18:57:36 -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