Re: [6tisch] Quick review on draft 15

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Sun, 28 February 2016 07:58 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
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 C61DC1B308C for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 23:58:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.506
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 4Ak_cX9xMrSr for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 23:58:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 935271A1A20 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 23:58:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12686; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1456646280; x=1457855880; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=qByITXomZiVAWpXpyeAtr5d3mwk1Q9nPU326OfHIfvs=; b=QRYTjb0L98lOgO+stGQ7AEp1n6US3O95hfXvcVfD9eHv/EjHOqz8YmwG MG0JzG3WnOhSuy4kPWUy/dRuXeYovDjVpJxvNtD5GlezLD6wmtDajTN5r gCNi2fAcPsqa9AO5Ldmkz0iM4eG0DKQMzSOEbPZRQYGCI8hZJviXrrbKs c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0B4AgCVp9JW/4ENJK1egm5MUm2qYo97A?= =?us-ascii?q?Q2BZhcBCYUoSgKBJjgUAQEBAQEBAWQnhEIBAQQBAQEkRwsQAgEIDjEHIQYLFBE?= =?us-ascii?q?CBA4FiAoDEg65Zg2EPQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARWGEoFsgk6COoIoE?= =?us-ascii?q?YJtgQ8FjWOFEoQXAYVYhhWBdIIpjEuHBodDAR4BAUKDZGqINwEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.22,513,1449532800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="80462745"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 28 Feb 2016 07:57:59 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u1S7vx9i016344 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 28 Feb 2016 07:57:59 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 01:57:58 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 01:57:58 -0600
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Xavier Vilajosana <xvilajosana@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [6tisch] Quick review on draft 15
Thread-Index: AQHRce9p+3L3ORXPKkK3IzuHO0YfVJ9BF5uH
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 07:57:58 +0000
Message-ID: <C53B7864-7B6E-41A3-965F-9FDB5B150415@cisco.com>
References: <d3b5b1bd4d1b4b32bfa40a071ebe7cc9@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <CADJ9OA90Jk3U09k_2orC7mCVD79+owyr2we3wPArbhmY-r=eCw@mail.gmail.com>, <CAMsDxWT5DDEB0YEQoG6RmB3X+Bh89LT_z2UzVZ-+n6rFjqB7dQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMsDxWT5DDEB0YEQoG6RmB3X+Bh89LT_z2UzVZ-+n6rFjqB7dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C53B78647B6E41A3965F9FDB5B150415ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/wBwSOWq5bVgkoueGILT4E61vsX4>
Cc: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Xavi_Vilajosana_Guill=E9n?= <xvilajosana@uoc.edu>, Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] Quick review on draft 15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 07:58:03 -0000

Yes it is!

Pascal

Le 28 févr. 2016 à 07:15, Xavier Vilajosana <xvilajosana@gmail.com<mailto:xvilajosana@gmail.com>> a écrit :

Dear Pascal, Thomas,

I will address the little indications given by Pascal and then publish v15. Is that fine?

thanks so much!
X

2016-02-26 15:07 GMT+01:00 Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr<mailto:thomas.watteyne@inria.fr>>:
Authors,
I went through the changes between v14 and v15 on the bitbucket repo and agree with the changes made.
Thomas

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com<mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hello Xavi:

I'm not asking for any change change but editorials. In particular I do not see a need to say that minimal could be disabled. Anything can be disabled, it's always an admin decision to implement a protocol. The important thing is that minimal does not preclude the use of other TSCH traffic on other timeslots.

As I reread the draft, I have some editorial suggestions, feel free to pick or not:

"bitmap in the active cell indicate that a node" -> indicates?
"This results in ''Slotted Aloha'' behavior" -> This results in a behavior that is similar to that of ''Slotted Aloha''.
"acknowledgement" -> acknowledgment
"neighbour" -> neighbor
"EBs MUST NOT be used for time" -> EBs are not used for time
"rank" -> Rank  (when talking about RPL's Rank)
"Routing extension headers such as RPI and SRH and inner
   IP headers MUST be compressed according to [RFC6282],
   [I-D.ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch] and [I-D.ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch]."
->
"
Routing extension headers such as RPI [RFC6550] and SRH [RFC6554], and outer
   IP headers in case on encapsulation MUST be compressed according to
   [I-D.ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch] and [I-D.ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch].
"

Also: [I-D.ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch] and [I-D.ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch] should be normative references. Should not delay minimal if we last call soon.

Take care,

Pascal

_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
6tisch@ietf.org<mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch




--
_______________________________________

Thomas Watteyne, PhD
Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria
Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH

www.thomaswatteyne.com<http://www.thomaswatteyne.com>
_______________________________________

_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
6tisch@ietf.org<mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch




--
xvilajosana.org<http://xvilajosana.org>