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>wrote;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]
> 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>
> 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>
> 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> 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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
>
>
>
>
>