Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides

Dear Qin:

In this case we need to align time slots that are computed by 2 protocols to make a single track. Computing those tracks would be PCE work, and agreeing to collate path segments is the sort of things PCEs do.

I think it's OK. It's not really impacting the mote. What's impacting the mote is the capability to talk both protocols to forward packets and how it will do that (ona same interface?) is TBD.

Cheers,

Pascal

From: 6tsch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6tsch-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Qin Wang
Sent: lundi 22 juillet 2013 17:35
To: Alfredo Grieco
Cc: 6TSCH
Subject: Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides

Alfredo,

It may be too heavy to coordinate with WirelessHart and ISA100.11a. Should we commit it? I think we need to discuss the problem in ML. How do you think?

Qin

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Alfredo Grieco <alfredo.grieco@gmail.com<mailto:alfredo.grieco@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Qin,

There is also this further clarification in 6.1.2

"In that mode, the PCE may coordinate with a WirelessHART Network Manager or
an ISA100.11a System Manager in order to specify the flows that are to be
transported transparently over the Track."

I was referring to this last one.

What do you think ?

Cheers and thanks

Al

Da: Qin Wang [mailto:qinwang@berkeley.edu<mailto:qinwang@berkeley.edu>]
Inviato: Monday, July 22, 2013 5:20 PM
A: Alfredo Grieco
Cc: 6TSCH
Oggetto: Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides

Hi Alfredo,

Thank you very much for finding it out, i.e. in section 6,

"As a result, as long as the TSCH MAC (and Layer 2 security) accepts a
frame, that frame can be switched regardless of the protocol, whether this
is an IPv6 packet, a 6LoWPAN fragment, or a frame from an alternate protocol
such as WirelessHART of ISA100.11a."

But, from implementation point of view, it seems to me that the NW layer of
WirelessHART or ISA100.11a has to call the commands of 6top, instead of the
primitives of DL layer defined in WirelessHart and ISA100.11a. I'm not sure
if it works for WirelessHart and ISA100.11a.

Thought?
Qin

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Alfredo Grieco <alfredo.grieco@gmail.com<mailto:alfredo.grieco@gmail.com>>
wrote:
Hi Qin,

Sorry for the late reply.

If you go to Sec. 6 of the architecture draft
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6tsch-architecture-02) we
explicitly say that ISA100.11a and WiHart could interoperate with a 6tsch
lln.

In this sense, we move from competing to interoperating standards.

Does it sound for you ?

Thanks

Alfredo

Da: Qin Wang [mailto:qinwang@berkeley.edu<mailto:qinwang@berkeley.edu>]
Inviato: Friday, July 19, 2013 10:35 PM
A: Alfredo Grieco
Cc: Thomas Watteyne; 6TSCH; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Oggetto: Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides

Alfredo,

Thank you for clarifying. But, I'm still confused. Maybe I missed something.
Can you tell me what you mean by "competing stds"?

Thanks!
Qin

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Alfredo Grieco <alfredo.grieco@gmail.com<mailto:alfredo.grieco@gmail.com>>
wrote:
Qin,

I was saying the opposite: 6top goes on top.

There was a nice picture shown by Pascal in one of our weekly call several
weeks ago.

Of course, the point you raise about ipv6 taking advantage from tsch is ok.

Cheers

Alfredo

On Friday, July 19, 2013, Qin Wang wrote:
Hi Alfredo,

I don't think  WirelessHart and ISA100.11a can be added on top of 6top. The
reasons are:

(1) They have their own and different protocol stacks.
(2) They use Timeslotted channel hopping technology, but not IEEE802.15.4e
TSCH.

So, according to my understanding, the problem is how IPv6 protocol stack
can take advantage of TSCH, which has been proven good and standardized by
IEEE.

Thought?
Qin

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Alfredo Grieco <alfredo.grieco@gmail.com<mailto:alfredo.grieco@gmail.com>>
wrote:
Dear Qin,

As far as I remember, it could be also possible to embrace other
technologies by adding on top of them 6top. No need to replace but include
other technologies.

Cheers

Alfredo

On Friday, July 19, 2013, Qin Wang wrote:
Hi Thomas and All,

The first item of problems in the slide is:

      Customer dissatisfaction with competing stds
      -> no device interop, double opex
      -> lack of common network management
What does "competing stds" refer to? Referring to existing standards like
WirelessHart, ISA100.11a, or something else? From the statement, it may be
derived that 6TSCH WG wants to create a common standard to replace the
competing standards. It is not our objective, right?
Maybe I misunderstand something. Please point out.
Thanks
Qin

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Thomas Watteyne
<watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu<mailto:watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu>> wrote:
All,

FYI, I pushed the 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides we modified live
during the webex onto the repo. You'll find the latest version at
https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/meetings/src/master/130730_ietf-87_berlin

Thomas

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