Re: [6tisch] 6P and Sf0 issue: Token to identify transactions in 6P

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Tue, 08 March 2016 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F74112D724 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 07:10:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sqa4OfQGF7cc for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 07:10:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C32312D58F for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 07:10:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1533; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1457449841; x=1458659441; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=C8VWM5ACRIJF+tuPM0BFQ3FVyQfQ7Ra9Iuj6179H/KM=; b=KR6eLZE8C5PSnoRDtTNsPg8138r9FpSEr/TrNauwLMRCEoAojBUtdsY2 FrWALrIcRJvmMFoh11QMz6jmkhNjtIPai3yxlrCYyAaOCri6lg4+JUkjD iOVlK90Mv/R8d8upNuIAGBmnXs24P2NCQwbs3r0N80/6Ri4ispOZ9vDfm g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AhAgAg695W/40NJK1SCoM6gT8GukYBD?= =?us-ascii?q?YFphg8CgUA4FAEBAQEBAQFkJ4RBAQEBBDo/DAQCAQgRBAEBHwkHIREUCQgCBA4?= =?us-ascii?q?FCIgHAxK5Xg2ERAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARWGF4RCgj2BUwsBAYRXB?= =?us-ascii?q?ZcqAYt4gW6PAocNh0gBHgEBQoNkaohNNH4BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,556,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="78588260"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 08 Mar 2016 15:10:40 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u28FAdF5021129 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 8 Mar 2016 15:10:40 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; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 09:10:39 -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; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 09:10:39 -0600
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
Thread-Topic: [6tisch] 6P and Sf0 issue: Token to identify transactions in 6P
Thread-Index: AQHRdharXjQKnV8qLUijcPjy30pd9p9JRqgvgAUbB4CAACA90IABig6A//+gZtA=
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 15:10:17 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 15:09:39 +0000
Message-ID: <e5d44e727c8746fab93d6b8b5b3b9401@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <CAH7SZV-2kwi7UwVCKJJL6P3sb4j-osFG5OtEj22h_RRdPKHsZA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAdgstSdMJvOhMQvFZFbMhAfAu193hcmim1b=O3REkr4RZbyUg@mail.gmail.com> <9b2cc3dcdabe42e7967b0f9e1c6d28ee@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <CAAdgstRNx4oKCWoQTcVDFM=KPeZ69fH6=yx5=OyX1R62aEcS3A@mail.gmail.com> <EAC3A097-E588-454C-B532-6F028B016D33@cisco.com> <22237.33021.416706.121081@fireball.acr.fi> <13ebede894884c94a524356e99e18a18@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <22238.59031.234546.67779@fireball.acr.fi>
In-Reply-To: <22238.59031.234546.67779@fireball.acr.fi>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.61.231.143]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/wqVtfYgOFEcy8R8veZmZr5ARJGs>
Cc: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, "Prof. Diego Dujovne" <diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl>, Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] 6P and Sf0 issue: Token to identify transactions in 6P
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 15:10:43 -0000

Oh yes, Tero,

we agree on the bottom line and on your points.

Cheers,

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tero Kivinen [mailto:kivinen@iki.fi]
> Sent: mardi 8 mars 2016 15:50
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>
> Cc: Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com>om>; 6tisch@ietf.org; Prof. Diego
> Dujovne <diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl>
> Subject: RE: [6tisch] 6P and Sf0 issue: Token to identify transactions in 6P
> 
> Pascal Thubert (pthubert) writes:
> > But this is another discussion entirely. It is about the transaction
> > that associates new timeslots to a bundle and why we need a
> > correlator, or transaction ID. I was explaining that if the parent
> > wait for the ack to allocate a slot that was negotiated, and there is
> > no flow after that, then if the ack is lost the child thinks the slot
> > is allocated and the parent does not. The child may start using it
> > wrongly.
> 
> Which is why you should not use ACK for anything like that, but instead use
> application level messages for that kind of things.
> 
> > The point behind this is that if the transaction does not complete, it
> > must be retried from scratch with the same sequence, or it must time
> > out and roll back.
> 
> Receiving or not receiving ACK should not cause transaction to complete or
> not to complete, there must be some kind of application level message to
> indicate that it was successful if that information is needed in the peers.
> --
> kivinen@iki.fi