Re: [6tsch] About the special type of event to ask PCE to create a track

Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu> Wed, 04 September 2013 22:10 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 1F46121F9F9B for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 15:10:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.595
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.219, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, 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 lNBfqgoDXbTn for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 15:10:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f46.google.com (mail-vb0-f46.google.com [209.85.212.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59EC321F9F99 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 15:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vb0-f46.google.com with SMTP id p13so596083vbe.33 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Sep 2013 15:10:00 -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=zL8xTaEYYCN8YVn75wzCO4El5LdljEnPc8SAvugTrAc=; b=gJcI0SKyiX4d3pg+8Qd8xsUMH2d1GUQm2+VvZeWysrKPg9De5mMvqhcLUO9I5SvaY3 gc9fHFoCtLCTmpkCSlReTyLBe3tj/FrScceS9whLIP8VJQwQX7j/978Uxg9f3gf4fXos dLXCalaBPAiKIzLkn2ZMJcx4dPVlbsQVYew+6xMui3TndEKXewwCM+mt/Xk08SnU2wy/ sp3lakVrGAQcTmHFrsGLxJjGM5XAyo4d+k6jJcWHA9YV6iiMUplb90Bpg3IUzUnA/1QN 2cO0cKk7MmpVZDvo52jTX/M6t7a0/Pzjie7tdFSqEmcB5/MqfDjCjLdrUdG0zCklaGtA ZNZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkoPcir+qsF2gQy3Qc2mIGiAADrHTVblwss5xGzmRH7ikO3dK9+3uTRDeqXjuKIMILQsLYN
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.198.13 with SMTP id iy13mr4580504vec.11.1378332600645; Wed, 04 Sep 2013 15:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.116.135 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 15:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADJ9OA9fmgmr9xFy0QM=NL4=DD4jG7=vH8i74KGoJEngXGOZaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD841433684@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <CAAzoce6x7hNZX+GV1xcf9nyDZok2h57SjFh_AjbJXvzM=sUuzQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADJ9OA-7=b2zycBcGrjOeUVzuH23ADx6Yt5a6gyPtvB7ULzYKA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAzoce7OMcoydnrbo1LvHfKtwOi_4W2MMEwgp8PyVaF68hvF2Q@mail.gmail.com> <CADJ9OA9fmgmr9xFy0QM=NL4=DD4jG7=vH8i74KGoJEngXGOZaw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 06:10:00 +0800
Message-ID: <CAAzoce6G1i=rF2Sunvu=TULVnYSVuKBXgK=-mKzwpX__5Q49Jw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu>
To: Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6dcb7c0b483b04e59611d3
Cc: "6tsch@ietf.org" <6tsch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tsch] About the special type of event to ask PCE to create a track
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: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 22:10:11 -0000

Thomas,

I think "Flow" is a process to exchange messages for a given objective. For
example, action flow consists of a Action Request from ME to 6top, and a
Execution Confirm (Succ/Fail) from 6top to ME. But, "Schedule update
request" looks like one step of a process. I would like to suggest that the
5th flow is called "Schedule update flow", consists of a "Schedule update
request" from node to PCE, and something like "Track/cell installation"
from PCE to node.

Make sense?
Qin


On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Thomas Watteyne
<watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu>wrote;wrote:

> I would agree that a 5th flow makes sense, especially because it allows us
> to use different transport mechanisms for the report flow (CoAP?) and this
> new flows (CoAP now? maybe PCEP later?).
>
> Do what do we call this new flow? "Schedule update request" is a bit long.
>
> Thomas
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> Thanks for your explanation. You are saying the request packet from node
>> is generated by the upper layer of 6top, correct?
>>
>> If so, since the request packet is generated by upper layer of 6top,
>> instead of 6top internal events like alarm, I think it is reasonable to add
>> the 5th control flow.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Qin
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Thomas Watteyne <
>> watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Qin,
>>>
>>> Thanks for bringing that up. Allow me to answer in Pascal's place. We
>>> are talking about the format of the packets exchanged between the ME and
>>> the nodes. In the centralized case, these are application-level packets,
>>> i.e. packet generated by an entity a couple of layer above 6top. That
>>> entity talks with the PCE over the network, and with 6top through the API
>>> (internal to the node) as defined in
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-6tsch-6top-00#section-2.4.
>>>
>>> If we agree on that, the question is whether the packet the node sends
>>> to establish a new track is part of the event flow, or not. In both cases,
>>> it would originate from this application-level entity, but possibly
>>> transported in different ways.
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Pascal,
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is that 6top is a passive role in dealing with
>>>> cell/track reservation. In another word, the 6top in a node can report its
>>>> state, including neighbor table, cell usage, and other statistics
>>>> information, but can not make decision on if some cells/track should be
>>>> added or removed, which should be the responsibility of PCE in centralized
>>>> case or upper layer in distributed case. Thus, I can not see when the 5th
>>>> flow will be used. Can you explain more?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Qin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
>>>> pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> We discussed at the call that the(PCEP?) request to ask for a track
>>>>> establishment could be seen as an event, or could be a new flow.
>>>>> At the call, I suggested that it could be a new, 5th flow. My
>>>>> arguments are that this flow:
>>>>> - Probably yields different data format. The demand carries and
>>>>> points, end to end latency and bandwidth. That's quite specific.
>>>>> - Probably yields a different flow. Events do not necessarily have a
>>>>> response.
>>>>> - Probably uses a different transport as well (PCEP vs. CoAP)
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Pascal
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>  <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
>
>