Re: [6tsch] report flow contents

Xavier Vilajosana Guillen <xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu> Thu, 05 September 2013 19:47 UTC

Return-Path: <xvilajosana@berkeley.edu>
X-Original-To: 6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1714511E824A for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 12:47:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.728
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.728 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r189NihRaCXH for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 12:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com (mail-pb0-f46.google.com [209.85.160.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE88811E8200 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 12:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f46.google.com with SMTP id rq2so2240427pbb.33 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Sep 2013 12:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=p6jY4P7UyM3u4I80yr8O4RFeJNtgBGNVs9ZsOyyM2yc=; b=U7ZDRWF3xDWRUAaElkLXSm8lbz6OAMjYLv71/+Yp6oNjsx9rEnTUHSSMM8Qe6aEdJR vuJstgx4DNE5v+AlpGlAh4pcQqBrk+Ut0TfKB4FUC7WJbIHYH8CMGeNg6stZCZaN9FIj U8jHHBzKs+/xSQDr7l2Cdd0eva8mC3tISzcR6RDutWRgaJDFCWcOYoQyRYD79ujWUlil cvEgmVkIErT6HdP88g6caoKC3RSBH3Typ/TSyby6Z83Xyh3IzlGkm2TnumtUfVxalxyp l/LgabY1ZFDPExLd9mCjehPPPUssdhIVnsZQvWnYTZFe9oIRo1fX3fTdY8udS9B0NnLV VNCQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkuiDWRw87b/pqfr+twzW8DFRcHzMEl0rWmXWDcb7gKPXzLHqvTumSnzRmsYsU6BMcmQaHJ
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.67.2.33 with SMTP id bl1mr7351912pad.78.1378410456355; Thu, 05 Sep 2013 12:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.34.44 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 12:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADJ9OA_XeC7Z5hFxyHhFGqD0aFMcBn=iHzDfRq34sL9qPi2P4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADJ9OA_XeC7Z5hFxyHhFGqD0aFMcBn=iHzDfRq34sL9qPi2P4A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 12:47:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CALEMV4YN3rA2OXeAV1akOZhdQrMOQvhN0A+t6vsL9RPVV=VMnQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Xavier Vilajosana Guillen <xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu>
To: Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b1121bf9b316e04e5a831ef
Cc: "6tsch@ietf.org" <6tsch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tsch] report flow contents
X-BeenThere: 6tsch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu
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" <6tsch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tsch>, <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tsch>
List-Post: <mailto:6tsch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch>, <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 19:47:42 -0000

Hi Thomas, Diego,

I agree that LQI should be there as well. I update here the list with
Thomas suggestions.

For each known neighbor:
 -ID
 -AVG RSSI in a running window
 -Latest RSSI
 -AVG LQI in a running window
 -Latest LQI
 -Num TX packets (option in case there is communication with that neighbor)
 -Num ACK packets (option in case there is communication with that neighbor)
 -Num RX packets (option in case there is communication with that neighbor)
 -Last ASN when it heart about that neighbor

Other fields
 -Num links in the Schedule to that neighbor
    -For each link PDR
 -For each Queue:
    - Avg Queue length in a running window
    - Max Queue length in a running window (peak)
    - Current Queue length (?)
-Time source parent
    -ID
    -Avg clock drift (correction done) in a running window
    -Latest clock correction
    -Parent changes (counter of how many times I changed my time source
parent)

-Option Flag (weather there are optional TLV fields)
   +(TLV objects)*


Hope this makes sense.
cheers!
Xavi


On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu
> wrote:

> *[renamed thread]*
>
> Xavi,
>
> A few thoughts:
> - the counters (numTx, etc) will only be present for neighbors the node
> has communicate with, so they should be optional in the packet.
> - you have focused on the topological information (which I think is the
> right one). It might be useful to gather other data related to
> synchronization or queuing.
> - I couldn't agree more with your suggestion to make it extensible. This
> does mean that we will need to state somewhere that a device need to ignore
> silently fields it does not understand.
>
> Thomas
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Xavier Vilajosana Guillen <
> xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hello, I guess that flows are getting defined and I started to think on
>> the contents of the messages on that flows. Not sure if this is the right
>> time or I am going way far..
>>
>> According to the previous discussion I assume that the five flows are:
>>
>> ME-6TOP - Query Flow
>> ME-6TOP - Action Flow
>>
>> 6TOP - ME - Report Flow
>> 6TOP - ME - Event Flow
>> 6TOP - ME - Request BW Flow
>>
>> I'd like to start defining the content of the messages in the Report Flow:
>>
>> The Report Flow: has to deal with the information that a node knows and
>> has to be sent to the ME so the ME can compute the schedule among others.
>> Here I list  the information that we can know in a mote and can be used at
>> the ME to compute the schedule (complete please if I miss something)
>>
>> For each known neighbor:
>>  -ID
>>  -AVG RSSI in a running window
>>  -Latest RSSI
>>  -Num TX packets
>>  -Num ACK packets
>>  -Num RX packets
>>  -Last ASN when it heart about that neighbor
>>
>> Other fields
>>  -Num links in the Schedule to that neighbor
>>     -For each link PDR
>>
>>
>> Then we need to have some TLV like objects that can be used for
>> ad-hoc/naive/other extensions of the reporting process. In that way we
>> don't constraint the implementation of the scheduling alg. to that
>> information.
>>
>> what do you think?
>> X
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> In this thread, we will continue the discussion about Confirmation
>>> message. Here is some background information.
>>>
>>> Context: e.g.
>>>     - node sends a report and want to know if the report is accepted.,
>>>     - ME sends a action request and want to know if/when the action
>>> taken.
>>> Options:
>>>    (1) Nothing
>>>    (2) Rely on transport mechanism (e.g. confirmable CoAP message)
>>>    (3) App-level ACK type
>>>    (4) Use different flow (i.e. action flow)
>>>
>>> IMHO, different control flow may have different requirement for
>>> confirmation message.
>>>     (1) Action Flow, needs a App-level confirmation, like Succ/Fail
>>>     (2) Query Flow, automatically has the confirmation, i.e. the message
>>> packet corresponding to a specific query.
>>>      (3) Report Flow and Event Flow, option (1)-(3) are OK, but I
>>> prefer option (1) and (3), i.e. the confirmation message is an option, but
>>> if a confirmation message is needed, it should be App-level Ack, instead of
>>> transport layer confirmation, which will give 6top more flexibility.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>  Qin
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 6tsch mailing list
>>> 6tsch@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 6tsch mailing list
>> 6tsch@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tsch mailing list
> 6tsch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
>
>