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

[Thomas Watteyne <[e-mail]>]

Qin,

When a node makes a request for a schedule update to the PCE, the PCE will
have to update the schedule of all the nodes along the track. It might do
so using the Action flow. The 5th flow might only be used to (1) request
the update and (2) for the mote to request the status of its request and
(3) for the ME to indicate the success/failure of the request. As such, I
would not include "Track/cell installation" in the 5th flow, but rather in
the Action flow.

Thomas


On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>  +1
>
> Pascal
>
> Le 5 sept. 2013 à 00:10, "Qin Wang" <[e-mail]> a écrit :
>
>   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 <
> [e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <
>>> [e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>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) <
>>>>> [e-mail]> 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
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 6tsch mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
>>>>
>>>>  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 6tsch mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 6tsch mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
>>
>>
>   _______________________________________________
> 6tsch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
>
>