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

[Alfredo Grieco <[e-mail]>]

Qin,

I have to dig into the repo to find the exact slide Pascal shown during a
past call in order to exactly clarify how we could reuse what we are doing
for the 4e tsch also in different contextes.

Competing means different, not interoperable, and that require different
management systems.

Cheers and thanks for your valuable questions

Al



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

> 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 <[e-mail]<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '[e-mail]');>
> > 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 <
>>> [e-mail]> 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 <
>>>>> [e-mail]> 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
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>