Re: [6tsch] work item 3 renaming

Xavi,

Obviously, the current version of 6top does not deal with routes, only deal
with cells and tracks. In addition, in charter, it is said about the
distributed case as follows.

"to define the mechanism by which a source node reserves MAC-layer
resources along a pre-established RPL multi-hop
path to a destination node. The WG will initially look at RSVP and NSIS.
Depending on the applicability of RSVP and NSIS, this document will be
targeted to proposed standard"

It should mean that the routing table is managed be RPL, and thus, not
necessary to be included in the proposed standard.

Then, I can not see the necessity to add "routing management" in the
distributed case.

What do you think?

Qin

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Xavier Vilajosana Guillen <
xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> Hi Qin,
>
>
> "But, regarding to generalizing it to distributed case, my understanding
> is that  the routing management is likely irrelevant with 6top, because it
> is conducted by routing layer independently.  Sorry,  I haven't figured out
> what the new name will imply."
>
> unless you can carry some routing IE on 6top requests or you can use 6top
> monitoring and managing capabilities to change links (i.e remove a link in
> a route, and add another one to another neighbour to force a routing change)
> .
>
> X
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>> Thomas,
>>
>> Thank you very much for explaining it. It is clear. Now I Agree to
>> "Centralized routing and track management", because PCE can manage not only
>> tracks but also routing tables, actually, there is some sort of cross-layer
>> optimization in PCE.
>>
>> But, regarding to generalizing it to distributed case, my understanding
>> is that  the routing management is likely irrelevant with 6top, because it
>> is conducted by routing layer independently.  Sorry,  I haven't figured out
>> what the new name will imply.
>>
>> Qin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Thomas Watteyne <
>> watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed. And I see that the few hours to complain already passed :)
>>>
>>> Qin,
>>> The issue is that we have been discussing the possibility for the PCE to
>>> influence not only the TSCH schedule, but also the routing table. This was
>>> highlighted in the calls from 2 and 3 weeks ago, where we discussed the
>>> different forwarding possibilities. The old title of the work items
>>> suggested that the PCE only builds tracks (i.e. modifying the TSCH
>>> schedle); this rename is to give the PCE the possibility to modify the
>>> routing tables, too. This was discussed in the context of the PCE (i.e.
>>> centralized); Maria Rita proposed to generalize this also to the
>>> distributed case.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Raghuram Sudhaakar (rsudhaak) <
>>> rsudhaak@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  I agree. Consistent language makes it a better read.
>>>>
>>>>  -raghuram
>>>>
>>>>   From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
>>>> Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 6:39 AM
>>>> To: Maria Rita PALATTELLA <maria-rita.palattella@uni.lu>lu>, "Thomas
>>>> Watteyne (watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu)" <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu>du>,
>>>> raghuram sudhaakar <rsudhaak@cisco.com>
>>>> Cc: "6tsch@ietf.org" <6tsch@ietf.org>
>>>> Subject: RE: work item 3 renaming
>>>>
>>>>   I agree Maria Rita.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> If no one disagrees in the next hours I’ll make that change to the
>>>> draft charter.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Pascal****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Maria Rita PALATTELLA [mailto:maria-rita.palattella@uni.lu<maria-rita.palattella@uni.lu>]
>>>>
>>>> *Sent:* mardi 23 juillet 2013 15:34
>>>> *To:* 6tsch@ietf.org; Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Thomas Watteyne (
>>>> watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu)
>>>> *Subject:* work item 3 renaming****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Pascal, all,****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering if we should re-name work item 3, according to the  new
>>>> title we gave to work item 2 (i.e., “6TSCH Centralized routing and track
>>>> Management”).****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Right now, we have: “6TSCH Distributed Management”****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Should we re-name it: “6TSCH Distributed  routing and track Management”?
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,****
>>>>
>>>> Maria Rita****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>