Re: [6tsch] work item 3 renaming

[Qin Wang <[e-mail]>]

Pascal,

Thanks. It makes perfect sense.

Qin


On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>  Hi again Qin,
>
>  I agree with all you said below; 6top is a layer below routing thus does
> not do any routing.
>
>  Otoh the 6TSCH architecture has to describe how RPL operates over TSCH
> and in particular its relation the cell allocation and time sync so
> distributed routing is still an item for us.
>
>  Makes sense?
>
> Pascal
>
> Le 23 juil. 2013 à 19:29, "Qin Wang" <[e-mail]> a écrit :
>
>   Xavi,
>
>  Obviously, the current version of 6top does not deal with routes, only
> deal with cells and tracks. In addition, in charter, it is said about the
> distributed case as follows.
>
>  "to define the mechanism by which a source node reserves MAC-layer
> resources along a pre-established RPL multi-hop
> path to a destination node. The WG will initially look at RSVP and NSIS.
> Depending on the applicability of RSVP and NSIS, this document will be
> targeted to proposed standard"
>
>  It should mean that the routing table is managed be RPL, and thus, not
> necessary to be included in the proposed standard.
>
>  Then, I can not see the necessity to add "routing management" in the
> distributed case.
>
>  What do you think?
>
>  Qin
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Xavier Vilajosana Guillen <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>  Hi Qin,
>>
>>
>> "But, regarding to generalizing it to distributed case, my understanding
>> is that  the routing management is likely irrelevant with 6top, because it
>> is conducted by routing layer independently.  Sorry,  I haven't figured out
>> what the new name will imply."
>>
>>  unless you can carry some routing IE on 6top requests or you can use
>> 6top monitoring and managing capabilities to change links (i.e remove a
>> link in a route, and add another one to another neighbour to force a
>> routing change).
>>
>>  X
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Qin Wang <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Thomas,
>>>
>>>  Thank you very much for explaining it. It is clear. Now I Agree to
>>> "Centralized routing and track management", because PCE can manage not only
>>> tracks but also routing tables, actually, there is some sort of cross-layer
>>> optimization in PCE.
>>>
>>>  But, regarding to generalizing it to distributed case, my
>>> understanding is that  the routing management is likely irrelevant with
>>> 6top, because it is conducted by routing layer independently.  Sorry,  I
>>> haven't figured out what the new name will imply.
>>>
>>>  Qin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Thomas Watteyne <
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Agreed. And I see that the few hours to complain already passed :)
>>>>
>>>>  Qin,
>>>> The issue is that we have been discussing the possibility for the PCE
>>>> to influence not only the TSCH schedule, but also the routing table. This
>>>> was highlighted in the calls from 2 and 3 weeks ago, where we discussed the
>>>> different forwarding possibilities. The old title of the work items
>>>> suggested that the PCE only builds tracks (i.e. modifying the TSCH
>>>> schedle); this rename is to give the PCE the possibility to modify the
>>>> routing tables, too. This was discussed in the context of the PCE (i.e.
>>>> centralized); Maria Rita proposed to generalize this also to the
>>>> distributed case.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Raghuram Sudhaakar (rsudhaak) <
>>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  I agree. Consistent language makes it a better read.
>>>>>
>>>>>  -raghuram
>>>>>
>>>>>   From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 6:39 AM
>>>>> To: Maria Rita PALATTELLA <[e-mail]>lu>, "Thomas
>>>>> Watteyne ([e-mail])" <[e-mail]>du>,
>>>>> raghuram sudhaakar <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Subject: RE: work item 3 renaming
>>>>>
>>>>>   I agree Maria Rita.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> If no one disagrees in the next hours I’ll make that change to the
>>>>> draft charter.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> Pascal****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Maria Rita PALATTELLA [mailto:[e-mail]<[e-mail]>]
>>>>>
>>>>> *Sent:* mardi 23 juillet 2013 15:34
>>>>> *To:* [e-mail]; Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Thomas Watteyne (
>>>>> [e-mail])
>>>>> *Subject:* work item 3 renaming****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> Pascal, all,****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> I was wondering if we should re-name work item 3, according to the
>>>>> new title we gave to work item 2 (i.e., “6TSCH Centralized routing and
>>>>> track Management”).****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> Right now, we have: “6TSCH Distributed Management”****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> Should we re-name it: “6TSCH Distributed  routing and track
>>>>> Management”?****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,****
>>>>>
>>>>> Maria Rita****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>
>