Re: [6tsch] work item 2 in the charter

[Thomas Watteyne <[e-mail]>]

Pascal,
This sounds like a great middle ground. Qin, would you agree with this?
Thomas


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>  Hello Thomas and all:****
>
> ** **
>
> We can achieve some mobility for best effort RPL routes, it is mostly a
> matter of tuning of the protocol and OF. The exact details on what is
> needed could be worked out at ROLL.****
>
> For us that would mean beef up the dynamic slot allocation that has to be
> there anyway. ****
>
> ** **
>
> OTOH, my memory is that we agreed that deterministic and mobile do not
> play well, not well at all for centralized routing. So I agree with Thomas
> that we should not over commit.****
>
> Maybe for the time being we could place that in the interaction with other
> WGs, ROLL in this case? ****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers,****
>
> ** **
>
> Pascal****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf
> Of *Thomas Watteyne
> *Sent:* dimanche 21 juillet 2013 23:28
> *To:* 6TSCH
>
> *Subject:* Re: [6tsch] work item 2 in the charter****
>
> ** **
>
> Qin, all,****
>
> ** **
>
> We've had a lot of discussion around mobility during the webex calls a
> couple of months ago. I'm looking at the call from 3/22 in particular, the
> minutes of which are at [1] and the recording at [2].****
>
> ** **
>
> We ended up identifying 2 cases where some nodes are mobile:****
>
> - nodes mounted on a crane. Either the crane is pivoting, or two cranes
> cooperate to pick containers up.****
>
> - a mobile worker****
>
> ** **
>
> We agreed that there were a number of tricks we could play to accommodate
> some mobility:****
>
> - for the crane case, Alfredo suggested that we could "have [the] same
> cells scheduled at several potential neighbors of the node mounted on the
> crane"****
>
> - for the mobile worker case, Tom suggested that "mobile worker does not
> require deterministic schedules".****
>
> ** **
>
> In light of that, I would like to suggest to not over-promise on mobility.
> That is, we think we have a good solution for building static network, and
> that there are some tricks we can play for making space for some mobility.
> Yet, the solution we come up with involve some communication to resolve
> topological changes, either with a PCE, or locally using some reservation
> protocol. Since there is some delay/overhead associated with that, they are
> not designed for e.g. swarms of mobile robots. I'm not saying TSCH is not a
> good idea for swarms of robot, rather that we first focus on (almost)
> static networks.****
>
> ** **
>
> Maybe I'm missing your point. If I am, could you write down the exact
> rewording of the charter you are suggesting, and maybe point out the exact
> use cases?****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Thomas****
>
> ** **
>
> [1] https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/meetings/wiki/130322_webex****
>
> [2]
> https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/lsr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=66940742&rKey=711b58d40cd574d9
> ****
>
>
> On Sunday, July 21, 2013, Qin Wang wrote:****
>
> Pascal,****
>
> ** **
>
> Yes, I think we can add "mobility" in the first paragraph of "Description
> of Working Group [2/5]".****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks****
>
> Qin****
>
> ** **
>
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
> [e-mail]> wrote:****
>
> Dear Qin:****
>
>  ****
>
> I’m a bit out of sync.****
>
>  ****
>
> 1) I agree we shoud have mobility somewhrere****
>
> 2) slide 8 in the charter slides on the repo is this “ Description of
> Working Group [2/5]”****
>
>  ****
>
> Is that where you’d like to see mobility mentioned?****
>
>  ****
>
> Cheers,****
>
>  ****
>
> Pascal****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Qin Wang [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>]
> *Sent:* vendredi 19 juillet 2013 21:12
> *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [6tsch] work item 2 in the charter****
>
>  ****
>
> Hi Pascal,****
>
>  ****
>
> The slides are pretty good. Just a comment on slide-8. Should we add
> "mobility" as one of criteria?****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks****
>
> Qin****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
> [e-mail]> wrote:****
>
> Dear all:****
>
>  ****
>
> Please review the latest draft of the charter at
> https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/charter-ietf-6tsch/src ****
>
> Now is a good time to find the bugs! ****
>
> Work Item 2 in the charter (
> https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/charter-ietf-6tsch/) is still like this:****
>
>  ****
>
> “****
>
> 2. Produce "6TSCH centrali****
>