Re: [6tsch] report flow contents

Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu> Wed, 11 September 2013 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <twatteyne@gmail.com>
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 CB14121E8102 for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.167
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.167 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.790, BAYES_50=0.001, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-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 QPr2xKns+Nbj for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x235.google.com (mail-pd0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BFAE11E80D3 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f181.google.com with SMTP id g10so9500674pdj.12 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=fOxJs9YYAnDHAPo6qlcJGbSNjMaTHCHbe4/SQydFp3o=; b=kckLJZYs5rSmOuOzBIsFT8qgybvf2HAlTIZceotZKb0OE2PEACFrk9UlhaRiabx83A qxDgedKYFfIojTVN6307j4IA8YUJ0uJW3KG0Iffd6ZymfJwievrADY/lC4ov5qWxwdj1 Z9dlLGm2ip+E/VmvbgKBTBbCAjVtBTVCGnW6c9q31dhRxY1UKukOdbSTJx+jvH6uIiO5 3O14oZejWyEBMCnY89FYLtNFSHWFK/h5e8xTDHpF/xjWgcLJZyAqo61z58OxP1VgSxOm R5pkcg6pvHrRWdoNBx4u+P1gk/0Lwb5ZA34R+tF7w0khWmMRp+CjwHpNHxsLpJuwHU5/ wZLw==
X-Received: by 10.68.178.132 with SMTP id cy4mr2904515pbc.85.1378918757173; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: twatteyne@gmail.com
Received: by 10.66.147.193 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <76EA352C3C95BB42A2C4F2EE6493AD6E4DA7B88C@EXMBX23.ad.utwente.nl>
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>
From: Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:58:56 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: KgdKtuiHwTtT_UxTyq3saEPK7b8
Message-ID: <CADJ9OA9qb6aqyqonEmfZpqt3NHqm5EWPK-p2BAQf9C9sw8Cp3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: 6TSCH <6tsch@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=047d7b86f558b2126104e61e8a2d
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: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 17:00:24 -0000

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****
>
>  ****
>
>   ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>