Re: [6tsch] (no subject)

Xavier Vilajosana Guillen <xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu> Thu, 05 September 2013 18:15 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 DD0CA21E8142 for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 11:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.241
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.241 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.265, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 KuRr6YIC79mk for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 11:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-f169.google.com (mail-pd0-f169.google.com [209.85.192.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49B5A21E8133 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 11:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f169.google.com with SMTP id r10so2162750pdi.14 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Sep 2013 11:15:47 -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=dJde4hjaR1qMh3gU29/rWEs+XkNhuGoLLEAhrDqPGOA=; b=Fm99iTyWdBX3xxtHDbOJ1xQBPMZHyqzaNJBVBZdKJGomfCSvibRREb9VK6A+jnyWld 30foaarb/N8NI/3ruwucOg4ehcPvvMXyYY7DN7PyInjcBs+Nnafhxenh/xdnDiEKI3Uv z6nL2eLvIdDiDgeJs8lsIibAYTkkk+f6Z9iUZlGCRzV4lewk0bzYhZK6osH5Dhwk9GnZ o0X5PZWY90Cg9H7q0X6cZ2GFo8lcbjovhh77AIgRlcXP0iXV2d1H3VhYYB+57tg3lLpC z17NwZnQAXkYFlIn++N1j4aWdVHKmLEpPFBmvb8w+b7AJfWc7YWc4Xq9HSnk8eCz3zCq U6zQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn5YnGQkco61lB0wcgo8PAONJgFvFNcJoy7+7O8tZuHAv0Z9HQg65KIE43UGQQln1dFNXyo
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.143.199 with SMTP id sg7mr10791726pbb.13.1378404947113; Thu, 05 Sep 2013 11:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.34.44 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 11:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAzoce4Q-gwr9u4cCSxZ5Wfxhj2JsPDvEKnRZ305oLnaTLR7UA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAzoce4Q-gwr9u4cCSxZ5Wfxhj2JsPDvEKnRZ305oLnaTLR7UA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 11:15:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CALEMV4Yf_VuNk0Ay73MCV8J1KAfELzjQi3fk2cDS21StuJCpXg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Xavier Vilajosana Guillen <xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu>
To: Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b2e3f063ac63004e5a6e92c"
Cc: "6tsch@ietf.org" <6tsch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tsch] (no subject)
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 18:15:53 -0000

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
>
>