IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu> Fri, 19 July 2013 19:12 UTC

Return-Path: <qinwang@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 5440421E805D for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 ue6kGYxQlQ1K for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-f178.google.com (mail-ie0-f178.google.com [209.85.223.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15DA521E8114 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:12:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id u16so10108130iet.37 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=fLTBn8EBXUo337pcajxXUs5FsAK8+MhOicwFJeyYG/g=; b=KGtsYp9IvRii228yFWubQp9BH4CWh1VIBMA1gVDw1xXJQYSQTmIdPsLiyYrZHClAfp wmzSm0/aR6/TRk4auV5sTt4xmhuuG71l/5Z02oA+oImojBa/218jR/Mt6Qawu8UhmZ/+ zFmW7rh3BeLVo5fJb5W5EwoUhV/Qkx4Vk2NnMpOfivX5vXtQsy3MP/nnQ9is2UKny2ud j3sTTcCOMYOc2j6VWH7xSl5TcfWl3Wa44Vy+icWGf5g+JokACtluGf6rsccZYL8Q9jtP jmG+pUTid9UIfzhqbNNMbbBRZQrHC2R6Weuj7Q5NwlU6dU3B3zbA+pMN1oqukkOBjvR8 nBdw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.36.100 with SMTP id p4mr13072719igj.30.1374261130557; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.54.233 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD84137DB02@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD84137DB02@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 03:12:10 +0800
Message-ID: <CAAzoce7GEpnviwKkqC61hWx2Bkx8Y1f72UBq3c03PV6FfPgEKw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011608e484289704e1e21a40
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkZdOQSrFwfbgjGt147O1oENasGFAkSTMGKa2lJyyvm6BvklQeDfs3ylU32L6dqtvsK1VGw
Cc: "6tsch@ietf.org" <6tsch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tsch] work item 2 in the charter
X-BeenThere: 6tsch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 19:12:21 -0000

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) <
pthubert@cisco.com> 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 centralized management" to define the mechanism by which
> an****
>
> external Path Computation Entity can communicate with the 6top protocol
> layer****
>
> of the different nodes in the network (1) to modify their TSCH schedule and
> ****
>
> (2) to gather link quality statistics and data flow requirements.  The WG
> will****
>
> initially look at PCEP and CoAP.****
>
> Depending on the applicability of PCEP, this document will be targeted to*
> ***
>
> Proposed standard.****
>
> “****
>
> ** **
>
> Since the time we wrote this, we realized that there is a lot more to do
> than a simple increment to PCE/P.****
>
> ** **
>
> At the call we agreed that we should keep it to the level of requirements
> for this round. Do we all agree on this?****
>
> ** **
>
> If so we’ll need to revisit that text… Let us work on this early next
> week, this is probably the most urgent thing we have to do before the BoF.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers,****
>
> ** **
>
> Pascal****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tsch mailing list
> 6tsch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
>
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email