Re: [6tsch] report flow contents
Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu> Fri, 13 September 2013 14:55 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 5E09F11E81F2 for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 07:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=x tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[]
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 SAwUA5TD2PuI for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 07:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com (mail-ie0-f171.google.com [209.85.223.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BEF111E8180 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 07:55:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id at1so2805192iec.30 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 07:55:03 -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:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=upU1Etc4Vu9gATgWk/G6llYSqs4sjBiArxhd9MVEUlk=; b=WXrZKA/+I9h+UFOP6qUJ0SEuEASjFSJsWeBGB64IEHugo/LiRQQJNvBWjvnV8WhSbV mh6erf1ELwI5T03xLSB1/Ll1zIFi671XLNkJpPyg0JufEMkDkKX++4elCbN4uuyuNool muZiJES5PvziV/4sTdfKk3TiSrLyK6y3/chx/mO17pDJkhAANQIRuCOM60uLk0bbP3ki 0OOQ1ToBELHDsXqZm5hYVLCFZnBn3p4BrcvJaJinSYWceQkW2iS6Jyke3zsFVL5+hXxP 2TUu7Xm9r37FYlRWgjdcc6BMx+pfWr1icW1uQ8eK8pXdjewcm+vimFqqTH2WuBXRohNH INaw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnSFVz0/x9Y+Sqzjb6kSYU8lbKZK/bwFKb80/nvJo++4LkrKeg0ZIxLQleC8PdHkHQNeakh
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.73.41 with SMTP id i9mr1502157igv.30.1379084103002; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 07:55:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.139.234 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 07:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAH7SZV9-KaAiWOGxstDX3j5exL2EUC=4O_-pfm6tJMwe3kYOhA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADJ9OA_XeC7Z5hFxyHhFGqD0aFMcBn=iHzDfRq34sL9qPi2P4A@mail.gmail.com> <CALEMV4YN3rA2OXeAV1akOZhdQrMOQvhN0A+t6vsL9RPVV=VMnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADJ9OA8Cx3ingeiMdr60zUfMMENiay-Nftv0nMFOTD7=YcKgwg@mail.gmail.com> <CALEMV4ZdgWAFMyA=FtRik96evup-qJPQfTcDQEu99sfC0xFwuQ@mail.gmail.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD84145CB61@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <CALEMV4a=azY5MU00jNmcoek022gS=pUeXK1xVnucG+Zy6NTBOA@mail.gmail.com> <CALEMV4a=DCXV9ra832-5zEtiD7moUmj6GYu7tiosDYsD5v4ObA@mail.gmail.com> <CADJ9OA9OpGRvB1A4j-Byho_m8Zp3z1A5krCVi08U7xWP1Ohk+Q@mail.gmail.com> <76EA352C3C95BB42A2C4F2EE6493AD6E4DA7B88C@EXMBX23.ad.utwente.nl> <CADJ9OA9qb6aqyqonEmfZpqt3NHqm5EWPK-p2BAQf9C9sw8Cp3A@mail.gmail.com> <CALEMV4b4rfoLBWSOW8=wWR2xWy32V_uCXEzJ=5vaebL6g+LpbQ@mail.gmail.com> <76EA352C3C95BB42A2C4F2EE6493AD6E4DA7BC47@EXMBX23.ad.utwente.nl> <52316e72.c7380f0a.73cf.ffffc7a5@mx.google.com> <CADJ9OA9p2jihyn_o2XtLi7X7EBRQFMEADFjW8upKzgD70h3WOg@mail.gmail.com> <CAAzoce4Up5ar80n-1zr-Opq10QOBVDcvNApBBgPKr+g6UjDENw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH7SZV9-KaAiWOGxstDX3j5exL2EUC=4O_-pfm6tJMwe3kYOhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 22:55:02 +0800
Message-ID: <CAAzoce7FBnDhmAp=00DLmOtipDtJADQc16RCr9JGRxrpeTGXFQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu>
To: "Prof. Diego Dujovne" <diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="089e013a0270134ad604e6450aba"
Cc: Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu>, 6TSCH <6tsch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tsch] report flow contents
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, 13 Sep 2013 14:55:04 -0000
Hi Diego, Comparing the per-frequency report with the RSSI/LQI in the per-neighbor report defined on https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/meetings/wiki/report_flow_contents, I think the first one refers to the radio condition in a area, not specific to a neighbor; and the second one likely focuses on the average RSSI/LQI of all frequencies applied in a cell/bundle, not specific to a radio frequency. Make sense? Thanks Qin On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Prof. Diego Dujovne < diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl> wrote: > Hello Qin, > I think that a per-frequency report will help the PCE > to decide which frequency to use, and maybe temporarily > black-list them. For example, a dynamic scheme may include > sampling the blacklisted frequencies every X minutes to re-enable > them once the interference has disappeared. > This will require the node to refresh the RSSI > and LQI values in a opportunistic way (every time the a cell > uses that frequency) to save energy. > > Any thoughts? > > Diego > > > > > > 2013/9/13 Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu> > >> Hi Thomas and All, >> >> I think the per-frequency report (or called per-channel report in >> ISA100.11a) is important, because PCE can use it to build black frequency >> list and update channel hopping sequence. But, I'm not sure if it makes >> implementation too complex or not. >> >> Thought? >> >> Qin >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Thomas Watteyne < >> watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote: >> >>> Pouria, >>> Thanks again for the overview, which complements your first document >>> nicely. >>> >>> Alfredo, >>> Could you please elaborate what you mean by in-network processing? Are >>> you referring to a distributed way for the nodes to "consume" this data, >>> some fusion as the data trickles up the DAG, or something else? >>> >>> Thomas >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Alfredo Grieco < >>> alfredo.grieco@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All,**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> Do you think is it feasible to add a bit/flag that allows some form of >>>> in-network processing ? **** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> This would be very useful to distributed/decentralized scheduling >>>> techniques and should not cost that much.**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> Any thoughts is welcome.**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> Cheers**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> Alfredo**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> *Da:* 6tsch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6tsch-bounces@ietf.org] *Per >>>> conto di *P.Zand@utwente.nl >>>> *Inviato:* Wednesday, September 11, 2013 10:45 PM >>>> *A:* xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu; watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu >>>> *Cc:* 6tsch@ietf.org >>>> *Oggetto:* Re: [6tsch] report flow contents**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> Thomas,**** >>>> >>>> I agree with you that "source route failed" and "graph route failed" >>>> are out of scope of 6TiSCH.**** >>>> >>>> Regarding to you question about the per-channel report, I think they >>>> are based on each radio channel supported by the specification (channel >>>> 11-26 in 2.4GHz in IEEE 802.15.4), not channel offset. And a channel report >>>> generated for all neighbor.**** >>>> >>>> Regarding to your first question, let me now explain more. I think both >>>> of these standard provide a mechanisms to make it possible for >>>> System/Network Manager to also read (pull) desired attributes (But not all >>>> the feature in 6TiSCH). For example in WirelessHART [1], by “Report >>>> Neighbor Health List” request, the network manager might mention the number >>>> of neighbors to be read in “Number of Neighbor entries read” field.. ** >>>> ** >>>> >>>> I think, ISA100.11a provides more mechanisms for System manager to get >>>> the desired attributes from the field devices. And the first two features >>>> that you mentioned might also be supported by ISA100.11a.**** >>>> >>>> In ISA100.11a, three mechanisms are provided for reporting diagnostic >>>> information contained in dlmo.NeighborDiag (described in section 1 later) >>>> and dlmo.ChannelDiag (described in Section 2 later):**** >>>> >>>> 1. The health reports concentrator object (HRCO), can be configured >>>> to report any attribute in the DL *on a* *periodic basis*. >>>> dlmo.NeighborDiag entries (shown in Table 2) and dlmo.ChannelDiag (shown in >>>> Table 5) can be reported through that mechanism. Through the HRCO, the >>>> system manager can configure the device to report NeighborDiag >>>> periodically, such as every 30 minutes. Following each such report, on a >>>> per-entry basis, NeighborDiag counts shall be reset to zero. Levels shall >>>> use the current value as a starting point for the next period [2].** >>>> ** >>>> 2. Diagnostic information can be retrieved at any time by the >>>> system manager, by reading the applicable attributes. The system manager >>>> can read (poll) NeighborDiag as a read-only attribute *on a >>>> per-entry basis*. As in an HRCO report, counts shall be reset to >>>> zero when read [2].**** >>>> 3. Diagnostic information can be reported by the DL on *an >>>> exception basis*, through the DL_Connectivity alert (Described in >>>> section 3(a)). The DL can additionally be configured, through the >>>> dlmo.AlertPolicy attribute (shown in Table 6), to report NeighborDiag >>>> information when diagnostic values exceed a threshold. Only the row >>>> triggering the alert is reported. No values are reset [2]. **** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> In ISA100.11a, the system manager establishes a DL communication >>>> relationship between a device and its neighbor by adding an entry to the >>>> device’s dlmo.Neighbor attribute (see Table 1). Each such entry specifies a >>>> level of diagnostics to be collected, through the field >>>> dlmo.Neighbor[].DiagLevel. For each neighbor, diagnostics may be collected >>>> at a baseline level, or a detailed level including clock diagnostics [2]. >>>> This levels are described in Section 1.**** >>>> >>>> *Table **1. dlmo.Neighbor fields [2]* >>>> >>>> *Field name* >>>> >>>> *Field encoding* >>>> >>>> * Index (16-bit address of neighbor)**** >>>> >>>> ExtDlUint (used as an index)**** >>>> >>>> EUI64 (EUI-64 identifier of the neighbor)**** >>>> >>>> Type: Unsigned64**** >>>> >>>> …**** >>>> >>>> …**** >>>> >>>> *DiagLevel* (selection of neighbor diagnostics to collect)**** >>>> >>>> Type: Unsigned2**** >>>> >>>> Bit0 = 1 Collect link diagnostics**** >>>> >>>> Bit1 = 1 Collect clock diagnostics**** >>>> >>>> …**** >>>> >>>> …**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> When the dlmo.Neighbor[].DiagLevel field is set for a particular >>>> neighbor, the DL shall create corresponding entries in the read-only >>>> attribute dlmo.NeighborDiag. NeighborDiag values are accumulated from the >>>> time that the dlmo.NeighborDiag entry is created [2].**** >>>> >>>> ***1. ****dlmo.NeighborDiag:* >>>> >>>> dlmo.NeighborDiag is an indexed OctetString collection that contains >>>> diagnostics for a set of neighbors. The attribute is read-only, with rows >>>> created as needed by the DL [2].**** >>>> >>>> NeighborDiag entries are instantiated by the system manager, by setting >>>> dlmo.Neighbor[].DiagLevel bits to non-zero values. Iff (if and only if) >>>> Bit0=1, then summary diagnostics shall be collected for the neighbor, >>>> consolidated across all channels. Iff Bit1=1, then detailed clock >>>> diagnostics shall be collected for the neighbor, consolidated across all >>>> radio channels [2].**** >>>> >>>> *Table **2. dlmo.NeighborDiag fields [2]* >>>> >>>> Field name**** >>>> >>>> Field encoding**** >>>> >>>> * Index**** >>>> >>>> Type: ExtDlUint (neighbor address, used as an index)**** >>>> >>>> *Summary* >>>> >>>> Type: OctetString (see Table 3)**** >>>> >>>> *ClockDetail* >>>> >>>> Type: OctetString (see Table 4)**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> *Table **3. Diagnostic Summary OctetString fields [2]* >>>> >>>> Field name**** >>>> >>>> Field encoding**** >>>> >>>> RSSI (level)**** >>>> >>>> Type: Integer8**** >>>> >>>> RSQI (level)**** >>>> >>>> Type: Unsigned8**** >>>> >>>> RxDPDU (count)**** >>>> >>>> Type: ExtDlUint**** >>>> >>>> TxSuccessful (count)**** >>>> >>>> Type: ExtDlUint**** >>>> >>>> TxFailed (count)**** >>>> >>>> Type: ExtDlUint**** >>>> >>>> TxCCA_Backoff (count)**** >>>> >>>> Type: ExtDlUint**** >>>> >>>> TxNACK (count)**** >>>> >>>> Type: ExtDlUint**** >>>> >>>> ClockSigma (level)**** >>>> >>>> Type: Integer16**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> *Table **4. Diagnostic ClockDetail OctetString fields [2]* >>>> >>>> Field name**** >>>> >>>> Field encoding**** >>>> >>>> ClockBias (level, signed)**** >>>> >>>> Type: Integer16**** >>>> >>>> ClockCount (count)**** >>>> >>>> Type: ExtDlUint**** >>>> >>>> ClockTimeout (count)**** >>>> >>>> Type: ExtDlUint**** >>>> >>>> ClockOutliers (count)**** >>>> >>>> Type: ExtDlUint**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> **2. ***dlmo.ChannelDiag*:**** >>>> >>>> dlmo.ChannelDiag is a read-only dynamic attribute that reports DPDU >>>> transmit failure rates on each radio channel supported by the >>>> specification. This enables the system manager to be aware of consistent >>>> connectivity problems on a per-channel basis, as a diagnostic for spectrum >>>> management in a subnet [2].**** >>>> >>>> Two diagnostics are reported for each channel, each indicating a >>>> different type of failure. **** indicates the percentage of time that >>>> unicast DPDU transmissions on channel N did not receive an ACK or a NACK. >>>> **** indicates the percentage of time that unicast DPDU transmissions >>>> on channel N were aborted due to CCA. [2]**** >>>> >>>> *Table **5. dlmo.ChannelDiag fields* >>>> >>>> Field name**** >>>> >>>> Field encoding**** >>>> >>>> Count (Number of attempted unicast transmissions for all channels)**** >>>> >>>> Type:Unsigned16**** >>>> >>>> **** (Percentage of time transmissions on channel 0 did not receive an >>>> ACK)**** >>>> >>>> Type: Integer8**** >>>> >>>> **** (Percentage of time transmissions on channel 0 aborted due to CCA) >>>> **** >>>> >>>> Type: Integer8**** >>>> >>>> …**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> **** (Percentage of time transmissions on channel 15 did not receive >>>> an ACK)**** >>>> >>>> Type: Integer8**** >>>> >>>> **** (Percentage of time transmissions on channel 15 aborted due to >>>> CCA)**** >>>> >>>> Type: Integer8**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> ***3. ****Data link layer alerts* >>>> >>>> 1. *DL_Connectivity alert* >>>> >>>> DL performance diagnostics are accumulated in the attributes >>>> dlmo.NeighborDiag for *per-neighbor* diagnostics, and dlmo.ChannelDiag >>>> for *per-channel* diagnostics. Normally the system manager configures >>>> the HRCO to report these diagnostics periodically, and the DL automatically >>>> resets the diagnostic counters whenever these attributes are so reported. >>>> Between such reports, diagnostics may indicate a problem that needs to be >>>> reported to the system manager immediately. The DL_Connectivity alert >>>> provides the mechanism for the DL to report such issues, and the >>>> dlmo.AlertPolicy attribute enables the system manager to set thresholds for >>>> such reporting [2].**** >>>> >>>> The attribute dlmo.AlertPolicy enables/disables the DL_Connectivity >>>> alert and provides thresholds to control whether alerts are reported. >>>> dlmo.AlertPolicy is an OctetString containing fields as shown in Table 6 >>>> [2].**** >>>> >>>> *Table **6. dlmo.AlertPolicy fields* >>>> >>>> Field name**** >>>> >>>> Field scalar type**** >>>> >>>> Descriptor (Enables or disabled the DL_Connectivity alert.)**** >>>> >>>> Type Alert report descriptor**** >>>> >>>> NeiMinUnicast (Minimum number of unicast transactions needed for a >>>> neighbor report.)**** >>>> >>>> Type: ExtDlUint**** >>>> >>>> NeiErrThresh (Report neighbor diagnostic if the percentage error rate >>>> reaches this threshold )**** >>>> >>>> Type: Unsigned8**** >>>> >>>> ChanMinUnicast (Minimum number of unicast transactions on a channel >>>> needed as a pre-condition for triggering an alert.)**** >>>> >>>> Type: ExtDlUint**** >>>> >>>> NoAckThresh (Report ChannelDiag if a NoAck value is greater than this >>>> threshold)**** >>>> >>>> Type: Unsigned8**** >>>> >>>> CCABackoffThresh (Report ChannelDiag if a CCABackoff value is greater >>>> than this threshold)**** >>>> >>>> Type: Unsigned8**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> 1. *NeighborDiscovery alert*** >>>> >>>> The NeighborDiscovery alert provides a mechanism for the DL to report >>>> the contents of the OctetString in dlmo.Candidates attribute (see Table 7). >>>> **** >>>> >>>> The neighbors in the dlmo.Neighbor attribute are set by the system >>>> manager, not by the device itself. The DL autonomously builds a list of >>>> candidate neighbors in the dlmo.Candidates attribute. This list is then >>>> forwarded to the system manager. The system manager considers the radio >>>> connectivity that is reported in dlmo.Candidates, but may also consider >>>> other criteria such as resource constraints, historical performance, or >>>> subnet topology [2].**** >>>> >>>> *Table **7. dlmo.Candidates OctetString fields* >>>> >>>> Field name**** >>>> >>>> Field encoding**** >>>> >>>> N (count of discovered neighbors)**** >>>> >>>> Type: Unsigned8**** >>>> >>>> Neighbor1 (16-bit address of first candidate)**** >>>> >>>> Type: ExtDlUint**** >>>> >>>> RSSI1 (radio signal quality of first candidate)**** >>>> >>>> Type: Integer8**** >>>> >>>> RSQI1 (radio signal quality of first candidate)**** >>>> >>>> Type: Unsigned8**** >>>> >>>> etc…**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> NeighborN (16-bit address of Nth candidate)**** >>>> >>>> Type: ExtDlUint**** >>>> >>>> RSSIN (radio signal quality of Nth candidate)**** >>>> >>>> Type: Integer8**** >>>> >>>> RSQIN (radio signal quality of Nth candidate)**** >>>> >>>> Type: Unsigned8**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> *References* >>>> >>>> 1. IEC 62591: Industrial Communication Networks - Wireless >>>> Communication Network and Communication Profiles - WirelessHART.**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> 2. IEC 62734: Industrial communication networks - Fieldbus >>>> specifications - Wireless systems for industrial automation: process >>>> control and related applications - ISA100.11a.**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> *From:* 6tsch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6tsch-bounces@ietf.org] *On >>>> Behalf Of *Xavier Vilajosana Guillen >>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 11, 2013 8:54 PM >>>> *To:* Thomas Watteyne >>>> *Cc:* 6TSCH >>>> *Subject:* Re: [6tsch] report flow contents**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> Hi Thomas, **** >>>> >>>> my 5 cents.**** >>>> >>>> I agree on adding NACK information and timing differences with other >>>> than time source parent neighbors. I will add to the wiki :-)**** >>>> >>>> As regards to the differences of what we do at 6TiSCH and WHart or >>>> ISA100.11a, our proposal is more flexible and has less cohesion with a cost >>>> of increased complexity (e.g configurable data and reporting period). We >>>> have to analyse carefully what are the implications in terms of protocol >>>> complexity and implementation of that mechanism versus how often they would >>>> be used. Could we maybe define some "templates" or default configurations >>>> so using the 6TiSCH can be done without configuration overhead? Then >>>> configuration can be used for those that are really interested on tuning >>>> their system. **** >>>> >>>> just thoughts.. >>>> X**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Thomas Watteyne < >>>> watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:**** >>>> >>>> Pouria,**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> Wonderful list.**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> Your document clearly highlights that (1) the "report" flows both in >>>> WirelessHART and ISA100.11a are strictly periodic and (1) they have a fixed >>>> format. From what we have discussed so far, the solutions we are developing >>>> is different in the following ways:**** >>>> >>>> - 6TiSCH offers a mechanism allowing the PCE to configure what data >>>> it want to receive, and configure the trigger for a node to generate from >>>> data.**** >>>> - 6TiSCH offers a mechanism allowing the PCE to query the data, on >>>> top of having the nodes push the information**** >>>> - In 6TiSCH, the format of the payload is not fixed. In particular, >>>> it is possible to add application-specific fields, allowing for extensions. >>>> **** >>>> - In 6TiSCH, the transport (CoAP?) and formatting (CBOR?) are >>>> IETF-friendly and integrate well in the IPv6 stack and associated mechanisms >>>> **** >>>> >>>> Did I get that right?**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> A couple of questions:**** >>>> >>>> - the WirelessHART "alarms" correspond to a 6TiSCH "events". Yet, I >>>> suppose that a "source route failed" and "graph route failed" are out of >>>> scope of 6TiSCH, but rather part of RPL. I would expect those to the ICMPv6 >>>> messages. Thoughts?**** >>>> - About the per-channel report, I assume this is "per frequency", >>>> right? Is a channel report generated for each neighbor?**** >>>> - When comparing your list to *Xavi*'s >>>> https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/meetings/wiki/report_flow_contents:**** >>>> >>>> >>>> - we might want to add a "numNACK" counter to the neighbor >>>> information**** >>>> - we might want to keep timing statistics for all neighbors, not >>>> just time source parents. That is, when I receive a packet from a neighbor >>>> which is not my time source neighbor, I do not change my clock, but I still >>>> know the timing error.**** >>>> >>>> Thomas**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 7:18 AM, <P.Zand@utwente.nl> wrote:**** >>>> >>>> Dear All,**** >>>> >>>> In the following, I listed the performance metrics reported to the >>>> Network/System Manager in WirelessHART and ISA100.11a.**** >>>> >>>> Some reports still need be added, for example the path failure alerts >>>> in ISA100.11a.**** >>>> >>>> Pouria**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> *WirelessHART performance metrics***** >>>> >>>> In WirelessHART[1] network the statistics and events are reported to >>>> the Network Manager (act like PCE in 6TiSCH) through the following commands: >>>> **** >>>> >>>> 1. Report “Device Health” **** >>>> >>>> This report is sent periodically toward the Network Manager. The report >>>> summaries the communication statistics of a device.**** >>>> >>>> Byte**** >>>> >>>> Format**** >>>> >>>> Description**** >>>> >>>> 0-1**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-16**** >>>> >>>> Number of packets generated by this device since last report**** >>>> >>>> 2-3**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-16**** >>>> >>>> Number of packets terminated by this device since last report**** >>>> >>>> 4**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-8**** >>>> >>>> Number of Data-Link Layer MAC MIC failures detected**** >>>> >>>> 5**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-8**** >>>> >>>> Number of Network Layer (Session) MIC failures detected**** >>>> >>>> 6**** >>>> >>>> Enum-8**** >>>> >>>> Power Status**** >>>> >>>> 7**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-8**** >>>> >>>> Number of CRC Errors detected**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> 1. Report “Neighbor Health List” **** >>>> >>>> This report is sent periodically toward the Network Manager. The report >>>> includes the statistics of linked neighbors.**** >>>> >>>> Byte**** >>>> >>>> Format**** >>>> >>>> Description**** >>>> >>>> 0**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-8**** >>>> >>>> Neighbor table index**** >>>> >>>> 1**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-8**** >>>> >>>> Number of Neighbor entries read**** >>>> >>>> 2**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-8**** >>>> >>>> Total number of neighbors**** >>>> >>>> 3-4**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-16**** >>>> >>>> Nickname of neighbor**** >>>> >>>> 5**** >>>> >>>> Bit-8**** >>>> >>>> Neighbor Flags**** >>>> >>>> 6**** >>>> >>>> Signed-8**** >>>> >>>> Mean RSL (Receive Signal Level in dBm) since last report**** >>>> >>>> 7-8**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-16**** >>>> >>>> Number of Packets transmitted to this neighbor**** >>>> >>>> 9-10**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-16**** >>>> >>>> Number of Packets received from this neighbor**** >>>> >>>> 11-12**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-16**** >>>> >>>> Packets received from this neighbor**** >>>> >>>> 13-…**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> Number of entries based on response byte 1**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> 1. Report “Neighbor Signal Levels”**** >>>> >>>> This report is sent periodically toward the Network Manager. The report >>>> includes the statistics of discovered (but not linked) neighbors. These >>>> neighbors might be discovered when a device has heard the neighbor >>>> communication in the discovery links. A device that wish to join a network, >>>> send a join request to the Network manager, including this report.**** >>>> >>>> Byte**** >>>> >>>> Format**** >>>> >>>> Description**** >>>> >>>> 0**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-8**** >>>> >>>> Neighbor table index**** >>>> >>>> 1**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-8**** >>>> >>>> Number of Neighbor entries read**** >>>> >>>> 2**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-8**** >>>> >>>> Total number of neighbors**** >>>> >>>> 3-4**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-16**** >>>> >>>> Nickname of neighbor**** >>>> >>>> 5**** >>>> >>>> Signed-8**** >>>> >>>> RSL of neighbor in dB**** >>>> >>>> 6-8**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> Repeats (as needed) based on response byte 1**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> 1. Alarm “Path Down” **** >>>> >>>> The alarm is sent upon detecting a path failure. **** >>>> >>>> Byte**** >>>> >>>> Format**** >>>> >>>> Description**** >>>> >>>> 0-1**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-16**** >>>> >>>> Nickname of neighbor to which path failure was detected**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> 1. Alarm "Source Route Failed"**** >>>> >>>> This alarm is sent upon detecting a source route failure.**** >>>> >>>> Byte**** >>>> >>>> Format**** >>>> >>>> Description**** >>>> >>>> 0-1**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-16**** >>>> >>>> Nickname of unreachable neighbor in the source route**** >>>> >>>> 2-5**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-32**** >>>> >>>> Network-Layer MIC (i.e., the MIC generated using the session key) from >>>> the NPDU that failed routing**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> 1. Alarm "Graph Route Failed"**** >>>> >>>> This alarm is sent upon detecting a graph route failure.**** >>>> >>>> Byte**** >>>> >>>> Format**** >>>> >>>> Description**** >>>> >>>> 0-1**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-16**** >>>> >>>> Graph Id of the failed route**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> *ISA100.11a performance metric***** >>>> >>>> In ISA100.11a[2], the L2 performance metrics are reported to the System >>>> Manager (act like PCE in 6TiSCH) and can be classified into (1) >>>> DL_Connectivity alert and (2) NeighborDiscovery alert.**** >>>> >>>> 1. DL_Connectivity alert**** >>>> >>>> The DL_connectivity alert can be classified into (a) Per-neighbor >>>> reports and (b) Per-channel reports. **** >>>> >>>> - *Per-neighbor report***** >>>> >>>> Per-neighbor reports are the performance metrics about the neighbors >>>> connection and are reported to the System Manager. These statistics are >>>> accumulated in the “dlmo.NeighborDiag” attribute, for each neighbor. This >>>> report is similar to “Neighbor Health List” report in WirelessHART. *** >>>> * >>>> >>>> Each node in ISA100.11a might be asked to report the following >>>> statistics about its neighbor:**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> Octets**** >>>> >>>> Format**** >>>> >>>> Description**** >>>> >>>> 1**** >>>> >>>> Signed-8**** >>>> >>>> RSSI (level)**** >>>> >>>> 1**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-8**** >>>> >>>> RSQI (level)**** >>>> >>>> 1-2**** >>>> >>>> ExtDLUint**** >>>> >>>> RxDPDU(count): Number of valid Packets received from this neighbor **** >>>> >>>> 1-2**** >>>> >>>> ExtDLUint**** >>>> >>>> TxSuccessful (count):Count of successful unicast transmissions to the >>>> neighbor **** >>>> >>>> 1-2**** >>>> >>>> ExtDLUint**** >>>> >>>> TxFailed (count): Number of unicast transmission, without getting any >>>> ACK or NACK**** >>>> >>>> 1-2**** >>>> >>>> ExtDLUint**** >>>> >>>> TxCCA_Backoff (count): Number of unicast transmission aborted due to CCA >>>> **** >>>> >>>> 1-2**** >>>> >>>> ExtDLUint**** >>>> >>>> TxNACK (count): Number of NACKs received**** >>>> >>>> 2**** >>>> >>>> Signed-16**** >>>> >>>> ClockSigma (level): A rough estimate of standard deviation of clock >>>> corrections**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> - *Per-channel report***** >>>> >>>> In addition, in ISA100.11a, several performance metrics are reported >>>> based on channel for all neighbors to the System Manager. These statistics >>>> are accumulated in the “dlmo.ChannelDiag” attribute. This report is similar >>>> to “Device Health” report in WirelessHART.**** >>>> >>>> Byte**** >>>> >>>> Format**** >>>> >>>> Description**** >>>> >>>> 0-2**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-16**** >>>> >>>> Count (Number of attempted unicast transmissions for all channels)**** >>>> >>>> 3**** >>>> >>>> Integer-8**** >>>> >>>> (Percentage of time transmissions on channel 0 did not receive an ACK)* >>>> *** >>>> >>>> 4**** >>>> >>>> Integer-8**** >>>> >>>> (Percentage of time transmissions on channel 0 aborted due to CCA)**** >>>> >>>> …**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> 33**** >>>> >>>> Integer-8**** >>>> >>>> (Percentage of time transmissions on channel 15 did not receive an ACK) >>>> **** >>>> >>>> 34**** >>>> >>>> Integer-8**** >>>> >>>> (Percentage of time transmissions on channel 15 aborted due to CCA)**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> 1. NeighborDiscovery alert**** >>>> >>>> In ISA100.11a, each node sends a report, including a list of candidate >>>> (overheard) neighbors, to the System Manager to make a potential new >>>> routing decisions. The “dlmo.Candidates” attributed is used to store those >>>> information in each node in the L2. This report is similar to the “Neighbor >>>> Signal Levels” report in WirelessHART.**** >>>> >>>> Octets**** >>>> >>>> Format**** >>>> >>>> Description**** >>>> >>>> 1**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-8**** >>>> >>>> N (count of discovered neighbors)**** >>>> >>>> 0-2**** >>>> >>>> ExtDlUint**** >>>> >>>> address**** >>>> >>>> 0-1**** >>>> >>>> Signed-8**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> 0-1**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-8**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> …**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> 0-2**** >>>> >>>> ExtDlUint**** >>>> >>>> address**** >>>> >>>> 0-1**** >>>> >>>> Signed-8**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> 0-1**** >>>> >>>> Unsigned-8**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> * ***** >>>> >>>> *References***** >>>> >>>> 1. IEC 62591: Industrial Communication Networks - Wireless >>>> Communication Network and Communication Profiles - WirelessHART.**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> 2. IEC 62734: Industrial communication networks - Fieldbus >>>> specifications - Wireless systems for industrial automation: process >>>> control and related applications - ISA100.11a.**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> *From:* 6tsch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6tsch-bounces@ietf.org] *On >>>> Behalf Of *Thomas Watteyne >>>> *Sent:* Saturday, September 07, 2013 7:43 PM >>>> *To:* Xavi Vilajosana >>>> *Cc:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert); 6tsch@ietf.org >>>> *Subject:* Re: [6tsch] report flow contents**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> Xavi,**** >>>> >>>> Great, thanks!**** >>>> >>>> Thomas**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Xavier Vilajosana Guillen < >>>> xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:**** >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> I created the scratchpad section in the wiki to keep ideas >>>> https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/meetings/wiki/Home >>>> >>>> >>>> and added the flow content information here. >>>> >>>> https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/meetings/wiki/report_flow_contents**** >>>> >>>> have a nice weekend!**** >>>> >>>> X**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Xavier Vilajosana Guillen < >>>> xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:**** >>>> >>>> Hi Pascal, it is a good idea!**** >>>> >>>> I will collect that information and as Thomas put it at the wiki so we >>>> do not lose it. >>>> >>>> :-)**** >>>> >>>> X**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) < >>>> pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:**** >>>> >>>> Hello Xavi:**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> At the call I mentioned we could use info on tracks and cells as well, >>>> probably on demand from the PCE.**** >>>> >>>> For instance, the PCE could observe energy levels over some cells for >>>> a while to make sure they are clean.**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> What do you think?**** >>>> >>>> Pascal**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> *From:* 6tsch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6tsch-bounces@ietf.org] *On >>>> Behalf Of *Xavier Vilajosana Guillen >>>> *Sent:* vendredi 6 septembre 2013 01:17 >>>> *To:* Thomas Watteyne >>>> *Cc:* 6tsch@ietf.org >>>> *Subject:* Re: [6tsch] report flow contents**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> agreed!**** >>>> >>>> So the fields become:**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> For each known neighbor:**** >>>> >>>> -ID**** >>>> >>>> -AVG RSSI in a running window**** >>>> >>>> -Latest RSSI**** >>>> >>>> -AVG LQI in a running window [optional]**** >>>> >>>> -Latest LQI [optional]**** >>>> >>>> -Num TX packets (option in case there is communication with that >>>> neighbor)**** >>>> >>>> -Num ACK packets (option in case there is communication with that >>>> neighbor)**** >>>> >>>> -Num RX packets (option in case there is communication with that >>>> neighbor)**** >>>> >>>> -Last ASN when it heart about that neighbor **** >>>> >>>> -Bundle: Num links in the Schedule to that neighbor**** >>>> >>>> -PDR per link [Optional -- or maybe best and worst PDR only]**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> -Option Flag (weather there are optional TLV fields on that category)* >>>> *** >>>> >>>> +(TLV objects)* **** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> -For each Queue:**** >>>> >>>> - Avg Queue length in a running window**** >>>> >>>> - Max Queue length in a running window (peak)**** >>>> >>>> - Current Queue length (?)**** >>>> >>>> - ASN of the oldest packet in the QUEUE?**** >>>> >>>> -Option Flag (weather there are optional TLV fields on that >>>> category)**** >>>> >>>> +(TLV objects)* **** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> -Time source parent**** >>>> >>>> -ID**** >>>> >>>> -Avg clock drift (correction done) in a running window**** >>>> >>>> -Latest clock correction**** >>>> >>>> -Parent changes (counter of how many times I changed my time source >>>> parent)**** >>>> >>>> -Option Flag (weather there are optional TLV fields on that >>>> category)**** >>>> >>>> +(TLV objects)* **** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> -Option Flag (weather there are optional TLV fields in other categories) >>>> **** >>>> >>>> +(TLV objects)* **** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> as regards to this:**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> "Finally, do you envision a generic mechanism whereby the PCE can turn >>>> fields on/off, or triggered independently?"**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> I see it as CoAP Options, where a set of bytes can be used as "clever >>>> bitmap" to tell what options are there, the parsing will decode option by >>>> option and will read the fields. In that way any combination of fields is >>>> supported.**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> would that work?**** >>>> >>>> X**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Thomas Watteyne < >>>> watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:**** >>>> >>>> Xavi,**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> Fantastic!**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> I believe PDR for each link might be too long to fit in a packet. While >>>> the mote will most likely keep that information, we could move that to the >>>> query flow, i.e. it is available to the PCE on-demand.**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> Would you agree that the number of links in a bundle belongs to the >>>> neighbor? Of maybe we want a "bundle" category?**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> In queuing, it might be interesting to see the age of the different >>>> packets, to be able to monitor latency.**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> About LQI, there is no general consensus among vendors on what the >>>> definition is, or how exactly it is calculated. I would make it optional. >>>> **** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> Also, it might be good to be able to add arbitrary fields to each >>>> category: neighbor, queue, time source neighbor.**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> Finally, do you envision a generic mechanism whereby the PCE can turn >>>> fields on/off, or triggered independently?**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> Thomas**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Xavier Vilajosana Guillen < >>>> xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:**** >>>> >>>> Hi Thomas, Diego,**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> I agree that LQI should be there as well. I update here the list with >>>> Thomas suggestions. **** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> For each known neighbor:**** >>>> >>>> -ID**** >>>> >>>> -AVG RSSI in a running window**** >>>> >>>> -Latest RSSI**** >>>> >>>> -AVG LQI in a running window**** >>>> >>>> -Latest LQI**** >>>> >>>> -Num TX packets (option in case there is communication with that >>>> neighbor)**** >>>> >>>> -Num ACK packets (option in case there is communication with that >>>> neighbor)**** >>>> >>>> -Num RX packets (option in case there is communication with that >>>> neighbor)**** >>>> >>>> -Last ASN when it heart about that neighbor **** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> Other fields**** >>>> >>>> -Num links in the Schedule to that neighbor**** >>>> >>>> -For each link PDR**** >>>> >>>> -For each Queue:**** >>>> >>>> - Avg Queue length in a running window**** >>>> >>>> - Max Queue length in a running window (peak)**** >>>> >>>> - Current Queue length (?)**** >>>> >>>> -Time source parent**** >>>> >>>> -ID**** >>>> >>>> -Avg clock drift (correction done) in a running window**** >>>> >>>> -Latest clock correction**** >>>> >>>> -Parent changes (counter of how many times I changed my time source >>>> parent)**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> -Option Flag (weather there are optional TLV fields)**** >>>> >>>> +(TLV objects)* **** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> Hope this makes sense.**** >>>> >>>> cheers! >>>> Xavi**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Thomas Watteyne < >>>> watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:**** >>>> >>>> *[renamed thread]***** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> Xavi,**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> A few thoughts:**** >>>> >>>> - the counters (numTx, etc) will only be present for neighbors the node >>>> has communicate with, so they should be optional in the packet.**** >>>> >>>> - you have focused on the topological information (which I think is the >>>> right one). It might be useful to gather other data related to >>>> synchronization or queuing.**** >>>> >>>> - I couldn't agree more with your suggestion to make it extensible. >>>> This does mean that we will need to state somewhere that a device need to >>>> ignore silently fields it does not understand.**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> Thomas**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Xavier Vilajosana Guillen < >>>> xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:**** >>>> >>>> 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**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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**** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > DIEGO DUJOVNE > Académico Escuela de Ingeniería en Informática y Telecomunicaciones > Facultad de Ingeniería UDP > www.ingenieria.udp.cl > (56 2) 676 8125 >
- [6tsch] report flow contents Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Xavier Vilajosana Guillen
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Xavier Vilajosana Guillen
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Prof. Diego Dujovne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Xavier Vilajosana Guillen
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Xavier Vilajosana Guillen
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents P.Zand
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Xavier Vilajosana Guillen
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents P.Zand
- [6tsch] R: report flow contents Alfredo Grieco
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Prof. Diego Dujovne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Prof. Diego Dujovne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents P.Zand
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Prof. Diego Dujovne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents P.Zand
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents P.Zand