IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6tisch] #41 (minimal): intended status for draft minimal

Xavier Vilajosana <xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu> Mon, 30 November 2015 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <xvilajosana@gmail.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 5CC941B30F5 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:47:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 I4lFlg2pRNPG for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:46:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22d.google.com (mail-wm0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ED861B30EE for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:46:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wmww144 with SMTP id w144so146564137wmw.1 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:46:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=qcBj+QQ2trE+fZbUOj0Kkp/rYBm0q1UO7ENUtx3J7/w=; b=0oxWJguzxGXY1RBn62C7AMhyy1bddVQgQ/mJ0Y0el4mIagTws519X1vsq3RPC2u5Ee SdCF5qeVg5TkihlrshN6oXOoO4AYrrtDqKIoyD7GRlyq8ioiLVCbfjogrJf9Lfbs/UKl PURRjd/g+OE+wpmeBL9ABzunF6s05iiVRfZP8hyNiIyilaz3z39FaqF+LWUOuNYrgruN gJ+rFMzGXfiFgRonnazDgBzbH+pkFc1T1O430Ek6IDJtb1qmEQOBbXjLJA83MK/m3usb NzPITuJZBYO/rlvGWuidRQZFWyx097Gc66zGFU+9WyPNDT2Fv98d+KKokz7FNuaejmwl kKoA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.28.64.7 with SMTP id n7mr31068304wma.30.1448916418235; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:46:58 -0800 (PST)
Sender: xvilajosana@gmail.com
Received: by 10.27.179.105 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:46:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <565C911C.4070209@innovationslab.net>
References: <060.92a20915e49c32f8bffbbbb0b4a66869@tools.ietf.org> <075.1f97e51c53b1c124937a2b6c7fca39d7@tools.ietf.org> <a864c3f122d24d638adf712ed92054cd@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <565C8BC8.900@berkeley.edu> <565C8E1E.3040106@innovationslab.net> <565C8EB7.5000902@berkeley.edu> <565C911C.4070209@innovationslab.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 21:46:58 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: MADDWdBsu7EOkSVfFHj2mevXOsA
Message-ID: <CAMsDxWQ4DyOEuLjW3LsT3Kufidzxeqt5yGxa7swq6Qz=yBeiAQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Xavier Vilajosana <xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114b30626b19510525c824a4"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/zM5tE-5_j3czyzdmS4yWRcyLmcI>
Cc: Kris Pister <ksjp@berkeley.edu>, "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] #41 (minimal): intended status for draft minimal
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: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 20:47:01 -0000

I support Kris point.

RFC 2464 for example indicates how to construct the link local address from
the MAC layer field

  The IPv6 link-local address [AARCH
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2464#ref-AARCH>] for an Ethernet
interface is
   formed by appending the Interface Identifier, as defined above, to
   the prefix FE80::/64.


In minimal, for example, we say what information to be used in the JP
field of the Synchronization IE or what specific IEs from all the
possible set have to be sent in the EB to advertise the network and
what are their specific values.

Both documents in my opinion build a link between the above and below
layers by defining a set of rules or conventions.

kind regards,
Xavi




2015-11-30 19:10 GMT+01:00 Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>:

> Hi Kris,
>
> On 11/30/15 1:00 PM, Kris Pister wrote:
> > That was the original goal.
> >
>
> Hmm... Then there may be more things missing from this document then.
> IPv6 address generation rules/guidance, NDP operation, SLAAC
> functionality, MTU behavior, etc. all come to mind for that kind of
> document. Granted, those may be covered via reference to other RFCs...
>
> The main point is that if that is the goal, it is not clear when the
> Abstract starts with "This document describes the minimal set of rules
> to operate an IEEE 802.15.4 Timeslotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) network."
>
> Brian
>
> > ksjp
> >
> > On 11/30/2015 9:57 AM, Brian Haberman wrote:
> >> Is this document supposed
> >> to be the 802.15.4e equivalent of RFC 2464?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list
> 6tisch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email