Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides

Pascal et al. -
   I have no doubt that with a lot of effort we could overcome the 
technical challenges of making this work.
Unfortunately, I don't think that you will find a single company that 
would implement it.
If our goal is to impact the state of wireless for industrial process 
automation, we are doomed.
Fortunately, that's not our goal.  Our goal is to take what has been 
learned there, and give it to the
rest of the world.  Why complicate the process by insisting on bringing 
in WirelessHART and ISA100 again?  Don't we have enough hard problems to 
work on already?

ksjp

On 7/22/2013 11:09 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>
> Hi Qin:
>
> We do not intend to enable interop between foreign protocols but just 
> to tunnel, meaning that we expect the same protocol on both ends.
>
> 6top would just be a G MPLS pipe for that protocol; that's the whole 
> point in the MP of G MPLS, right?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pascal
>
> *From:*Qin Wang [mailto:qinwang@berkeley.edu]
> *Sent:* lundi 22 juillet 2013 19:30
> *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> *Cc:* Alfredo Grieco; 6TSCH
> *Subject:* Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides
>
> Hi Pascal,
>
> According to my understanding, wirelessHart or ISA100.11a devices have 
> to implement their entire stack, including their own Application 
> layer, network layer, DL, and 802.15.4 MAC and PHY. So,  if we want to 
> use 6top to forward the packets from WirelessHart and ISA100.11a, we 
> have to investigate the method to merge 6top with the two standards, 
> and to replace lower layers of the two standards. Do we really want to 
> do it?
>
> Thus, instead of saying that 6top targets building a common base for 
> different standards (including wirelessHart and ISA100.11a), I would 
> like to focus on IPv6 context, and use the two standards as facts to 
> show the advantage of TSCH.
>
> How do you think?
>
> Qin
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) 
> <pthubert@cisco.com <mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear Qin:
>
> In this case we need to align time slots that are computed by 2 
> protocols to make a single track. Computing those tracks would be PCE 
> work, and agreeing to collate path segments is the sort of things PCEs do.
>
> I think it's OK. It's not really impacting the mote. What's impacting 
> the mote is the capability to talk both protocols to forward packets 
> and how it will do that (ona same interface?) is TBD.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pascal
>
> *From:*6tsch-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:6tsch-bounces@ietf.org> 
> [mailto:6tsch-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:6tsch-bounces@ietf.org>] *On 
> Behalf Of *Qin Wang
> *Sent:* lundi 22 juillet 2013 17:35
> *To:* Alfredo Grieco
> *Cc:* 6TSCH
> *Subject:* Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides
>
> Alfredo,
>
> It may be too heavy to coordinate with WirelessHart and ISA100.11a. 
> Should we commit it? I think we need to discuss the problem in ML. How 
> do you think?
>
> Qin
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Alfredo Grieco 
> <alfredo.grieco@gmail.com <mailto:alfredo.grieco@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Qin,
>
> There is also this further clarification in 6.1.2
>
> "In that mode, the PCE may coordinate with a WirelessHART Network 
> Manager or
> an ISA100.11a System Manager in order to specify the flows that are to be
> transported transparently over the Track."
>
> I was referring to this last one.
>
> What do you think ?
>
> Cheers and thanks
>
> Al
>
>
> Da: Qin Wang [mailto:qinwang@berkeley.edu <mailto:qinwang@berkeley.edu>]
>
> Inviato: Monday, July 22, 2013 5:20 PM
> A: Alfredo Grieco
> Cc: 6TSCH
>
> Oggetto: Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides
>
> Hi Alfredo,
>
> Thank you very much for finding it out, i.e. in section 6,
>
> "As a result, as long as the TSCH MAC (and Layer 2 security) accepts a
> frame, that frame can be switched regardless of the protocol, whether this
> is an IPv6 packet, a 6LoWPAN fragment, or a frame from an alternate 
> protocol
> such as WirelessHART of ISA100.11a."
>
> But, from implementation point of view, it seems to me that the NW 
> layer of
> WirelessHART or ISA100.11a has to call the commands of 6top, instead 
> of the
> primitives of DL layer defined in WirelessHart and ISA100.11a. I'm not 
> sure
> if it works for WirelessHart and ISA100.11a.
>
> Thought?
> Qin
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Alfredo Grieco 
> <alfredo.grieco@gmail.com <mailto:alfredo.grieco@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> Hi Qin,
>
> Sorry for the late reply.
>
> If you go to Sec. 6 of the architecture draft
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6tsch-architecture-02) we
> explicitly say that ISA100.11a and WiHart could interoperate with a 6tsch
> lln.
>
> In this sense, we move from competing to interoperating standards.
>
> Does it sound for you ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Alfredo
>
>
>
>
>
> Da: Qin Wang [mailto:qinwang@berkeley.edu <mailto:qinwang@berkeley.edu>]
> Inviato: Friday, July 19, 2013 10:35 PM
> A: Alfredo Grieco
> Cc: Thomas Watteyne; 6TSCH; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> Oggetto: Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides
>
> Alfredo,
>
> Thank you for clarifying. But, I'm still confused. Maybe I missed 
> something.
> Can you tell me what you mean by "competing stds"?
>
> Thanks!
> Qin
>
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Alfredo Grieco 
> <alfredo.grieco@gmail.com <mailto:alfredo.grieco@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> Qin,
>
> I was saying the opposite: 6top goes on top.
>
> There was a nice picture shown by Pascal in one of our weekly call several
> weeks ago.
>
> Of course, the point you raise about ipv6 taking advantage from tsch 
> is ok.
>
> Cheers
>
> Alfredo
>
> On Friday, July 19, 2013, Qin Wang wrote:
> Hi Alfredo,
>
> I don't think  WirelessHart and ISA100.11a can be added on top of 
> 6top. The
> reasons are:
>
> (1) They have their own and different protocol stacks.
> (2) They use Timeslotted channel hopping technology, but not IEEE802.15.4e
> TSCH.
>
> So, according to my understanding, the problem is how IPv6 protocol stack
> can take advantage of TSCH, which has been proven good and standardized by
> IEEE.
>
> Thought?
> Qin
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Alfredo Grieco 
> <alfredo.grieco@gmail.com <mailto:alfredo.grieco@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> Dear Qin,
>
> As far as I remember, it could be also possible to embrace other
> technologies by adding on top of them 6top. No need to replace but include
> other technologies.
>
> Cheers
>
> Alfredo
>
>
> On Friday, July 19, 2013, Qin Wang wrote:
> Hi Thomas and All,
>
> The first item of problems in the slide is:
>
>       Customer dissatisfaction with competing stds
>       -> no device interop, double opex
>       -> lack of common network management
> What does "competing stds" refer to? Referring to existing standards like
> WirelessHart, ISA100.11a, or something else? From the statement, it may be
> derived that 6TSCH WG wants to create a common standard to replace the
> competing standards. It is not our objective, right?
> Maybe I misunderstand something. Please point out.
> Thanks
> Qin
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Thomas Watteyne
> <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu <mailto:watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu>> wrote:
> All,
>
> FYI, I pushed the 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides we modified live
> during the webex onto the repo. You'll find the latest version at
> https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/meetings/src/master/130730_ietf-87_berlin
>
> Thomas
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tsch mailing list
> 6tsch@ietf.org <mailto:6tsch@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tsch mailing list
> 6tsch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch