Re: [6tsch] work item 2 in the charter

Hi Thomas and Pascal,

I totally agree to the "middle ground".

Thanks
Qin

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu
> wrote:

> Pascal,
> This sounds like a great middle ground. Qin, would you agree with this?
> Thomas
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
> pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>>  Hello Thomas and all:****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> We can achieve some mobility for best effort RPL routes, it is mostly a
>> matter of tuning of the protocol and OF. The exact details on what is
>> needed could be worked out at ROLL.****
>>
>> For us that would mean beef up the dynamic slot allocation that has to be
>> there anyway. ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> OTOH, my memory is that we agreed that deterministic and mobile do not
>> play well, not well at all for centralized routing. So I agree with Thomas
>> that we should not over commit.****
>>
>> Maybe for the time being we could place that in the interaction with
>> other WGs, ROLL in this case? ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Cheers,****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Pascal****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* 6tsch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6tsch-bounces@ietf.org] *On
>> Behalf Of *Thomas Watteyne
>> *Sent:* dimanche 21 juillet 2013 23:28
>> *To:* 6TSCH
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [6tsch] work item 2 in the charter****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Qin, all,****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> We've had a lot of discussion around mobility during the webex calls a
>> couple of months ago. I'm looking at the call from 3/22 in particular, the
>> minutes of which are at [1] and the recording at [2].****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> We ended up identifying 2 cases where some nodes are mobile:****
>>
>> - nodes mounted on a crane. Either the crane is pivoting, or two cranes
>> cooperate to pick containers up.****
>>
>> - a mobile worker****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> We agreed that there were a number of tricks we could play to accommodate
>> some mobility:****
>>
>> - for the crane case, Alfredo suggested that we could "have [the] same
>> cells scheduled at several potential neighbors of the node mounted on the
>> crane"****
>>
>> - for the mobile worker case, Tom suggested that "mobile worker does not
>> require deterministic schedules".****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> In light of that, I would like to suggest to not over-promise on
>> mobility. That is, we think we have a good solution for building static
>> network, and that there are some tricks we can play for making space for
>> some mobility. Yet, the solution we come up with involve some communication
>> to resolve topological changes, either with a PCE, or locally using some
>> reservation protocol. Since there is some delay/overhead associated with
>> that, they are not designed for e.g. swarms of mobile robots. I'm not
>> saying TSCH is not a good idea for swarms of robot, rather that we first
>> focus on (almost) static networks.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Maybe I'm missing your point. If I am, could you write down the exact
>> rewording of the charter you are suggesting, and maybe point out the exact
>> use cases?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Thanks,****
>>
>> Thomas****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> [1] https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/meetings/wiki/130322_webex****
>>
>> [2]
>> https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/lsr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=66940742&rKey=711b58d40cd574d9
>> ****
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, July 21, 2013, Qin Wang wrote:****
>>
>> Pascal,****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Yes, I think we can add "mobility" in the first paragraph of "Description
>> of Working Group [2/5]".****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Thanks****
>>
>> Qin****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
>> pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:****
>>
>> Dear Qin:****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> I’m a bit out of sync.****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> 1) I agree we shoud have mobility somewhrere****
>>
>> 2) slide 8 in the charter slides on the repo is this “ Description of
>> Working Group [2/5]”****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Is that where you’d like to see mobility mentioned?****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Cheers,****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Pascal****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> *From:* Qin Wang [mailto:qinwang@berkeley.edu <qinwang@berkeley.edu>]
>> *Sent:* vendredi 19 juillet 2013 21:12
>> *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>> *Cc:* 6tsch@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [6tsch] work item 2 in the charter****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Hi Pascal,****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> The slides are pretty good. Just a comment on slide-8. Should we add
>> "mobility" as one of criteria?****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Thanks****
>>
>> Qin****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
>> pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:****
>>
>> Dear all:****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Please review the latest draft of the charter at
>> https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/charter-ietf-6tsch/src ****
>>
>> Now is a good time to find the bugs! ****
>>
>> Work Item 2 in the charter (
>> https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/charter-ietf-6tsch/) is still like this:****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> “****
>>
>> 2. Produce "6TSCH centrali****
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tsch mailing list
> 6tsch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
>
>