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

Great.
Pascal, maybe you can touch on this quickly in your 2e presentation? I went
over the charter, and I believe it does not need to be updated.
Thomas

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu> wrote:

> Hi Thomas and Pascal,
>
> I totally agree to the "middle ground".
>
> Thanks
> Qin
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Thomas Watteyne <
> watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>>  Pascal,
>> This sounds like a great middle ground. Qin, would you agree with this?
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
>> pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  Hello Thomas and all:****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> We can achieve some mobility for best effort RPL routes, it is mostly a
>>> matter of tuning of the protocol and OF. The exact details on what is
>>> needed could be worked out at ROLL.****
>>>
>>> For us that would mean beef up the dynamic slot allocation that has to
>>> be there anyway. ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> OTOH, my memory is that we agreed that deterministic and mobile do not
>>> play well, not well at all for centralized routing. So I agree with Thomas
>>> that we should not over commit.****
>>>
>>> Maybe for the time being we could place that in the interaction with
>>> other WGs, ROLL in this case? ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Cheers,****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Pascal****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> *From:* 6tsch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6tsch-bounces@ietf.org] *On
>>> Behalf Of *Thomas Watteyne
>>> *Sent:* dimanche 21 juillet 2013 23:28
>>> *To:* 6TSCH
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [6tsch] work item 2 in the charter****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Qin, all,****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> We've had a lot of discussion around mobility during the webex calls a
>>> couple of months ago. I'm looking at the call from 3/22 in particular, the
>>> minutes of which are at [1] and the recording at [2].****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> We ended up identifying 2 cases where some nodes are mobile:****
>>>
>>> - nodes mounted on a crane. Either the crane is pivoting, or two cranes
>>> cooperate to pick containers up.****
>>>
>>> - a mobile worker****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> We agreed that there were a number of tricks we could play to
>>> accommodate some mobility:****
>>>
>>> - for the crane case, Alfredo suggested that we could "have [the] same
>>> cells scheduled at several potential neighbors of the node mounted on the
>>> crane"****
>>>
>>> - for the mobile worker case, Tom suggested that "mobile worker does not
>>> require deterministic schedules".****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> In light of that, I would like to suggest to not over-promise on
>>> mobility. That is, we think we have a good solution for building static
>>> network, and that there are some tricks we can play for making space for
>>> some mobility. Yet, the solution we come up with involve some communication
>>> to resolve topological changes, either with a PCE, or locally using some
>>> reservation protocol. Since there is some delay/overhead associated with
>>> that, they are not designed for e.g. swarms of mobile robots. I'm not
>>> saying TSCH is not a good idea for swarms of robot, rather that we first
>>> focus on (almost) static networks.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Maybe I'm missing your point. If I am, could you write down the exact
>>> rewording of the charter you are suggesting, and maybe point out the exact
>>> use cases?****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Thanks,****
>>>
>>> Thomas****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> [1] https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/meetings/wiki/130322_webex****
>>>
>>> [2]
>>> https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/lsr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=66940742&rKey=711b58d40cd574d9
>>> ****
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, July 21, 2013, Qin Wang wrote:****
>>>
>>> Pascal,****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Yes, I think we can add "mobility" in the first paragraph of "Description
>>> of Working Group [2/5]".****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Thanks****
>>>
>>> Qin****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
>>> pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:****
>>>
>>> Dear Qin:****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> I’m a bit out of sync.****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> 1) I agree we shoud have mobility somewhrere****
>>>
>>> 2) slide 8 in the charter slides on the repo is this “ Description of
>>> Working Group [2/5]”****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Is that where you’d like to see mobility mentioned?****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Cheers,****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Pascal****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> *From:* Qin Wang [mailto:qinwang@berkeley.edu <qinwang@berkeley.edu>]
>>> *Sent:* vendredi 19 juillet 2013 21:12
>>> *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>>> *Cc:* 6tsch@ietf.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [6tsch] work item 2 in the charter****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> 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 centrali****
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 6tsch mailing list
>> 6tsch@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
>>
>>
>