Re: [6tisch] OTF: IP or not IP?

Qin,
      I see this more like an ability or a feature, than a capability.
Regards,

                       Diego

2015-10-09 16:51 GMT-03:00 Qin Wang <qinwang6top@yahoo.com>:

> Hi Pascal and all,
>
> I don't understand the meaning of  "with the capability for IoT routers
> to appropriate
> chunks of the matrix without starving, or interfering with, other 6TiSCH
> nodes." (even IoT routers is replaced with "6tisch router"). I cannot
> figure out what the capability is. Can you explain it more?
>
> Thanks
> Qin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, October 9, 2015 3:33 PM, Prof. Diego Dujovne <
> diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl> wrote:
>
>
> Pascal, Pat:
>                   Sounds good to me "6tisch routers".
> Regards,
>
>                           Diego
>
>
> 2015-10-09 12:59 GMT-03:00 Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>:
>
> Good point Pat.
> I found it strange as well as I was rereading this.
> Should I say 6TiSCH routers?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pascal
>
> *From:* Pat Kinney [mailto:pat.kinney@kinneyconsultingllc.com]
> *Sent:* vendredi 9 octobre 2015 17:53
> *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>
> *Cc:* 6tisch@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [6tisch] OTF: IP or not IP?
>
> Pascal;
>
> I agree with your change, but I wonder why we need to consider only IoT
> routers?  Shouldn’t we removed the IoT constraint?
>
> 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 9, Oct2015, at 10:48, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear all:
>
> Following up on the comments at the interim, My suggestion is to update
> item 3 as follows:
>
>
> 3. Produce an “On-the-fly" (OTF) specification to enable a distributed
> dynamic
> scheduling of time slots with the capability for IoT routers to appropriate
> chunks of the matrix without starving, or interfering with, other 6TiSCH
> nodes.
> This particular work will focus on IP traffic since the work on tracks is
> not
> yet advanced enough to specify their requirements for OTF operations.
>
> I remove the ‘for IP traffic’ within the main text to indicate that the
> initial focus is
> N IP traffic but I hope that now it is more clear that future work on
> tracks is not precluded.
> Does that address the comment?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pascal
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> DIEGO DUJOVNE
> Académico Escuela de Ingeniería en Informática y Telecomunicaciones
> Facultad de Ingeniería UDP
> www.ingenieria.udp.cl
> (56 2) 676 8125
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list
> 6tisch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>
>
>


-- 
DIEGO DUJOVNE
Académico Escuela de Ingeniería en Informática y Telecomunicaciones
Facultad de Ingeniería UDP
www.ingenieria.udp.cl
(56 2) 676 8125