[6tsch] (no subject)

Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu> Fri, 30 August 2013 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <qinwang@berkeley.edu>
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 5A1AE21F9E39 for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.041
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.041 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.827, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MISSING_SUBJECT=1.762, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 pd8WmojbX0UJ for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f52.google.com (mail-vb0-f52.google.com [209.85.212.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCB7021F9CA8 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vb0-f52.google.com with SMTP id f12so1481507vbg.39 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=HlW9/NbMWRs9CQhtHGotU65/ygghcQOLq2CMqjxVrww=; b=jD7PGRosnDYc1GeIXtb4DlieXx2So08qfXtQnE3WN1iVbmN/bV4AqSZv/bH9bq0xnG t3Y0jsDs3SY8LgsPrOwI7dhgeaiwJmKRSGE8UbiTJvU8FaMcHFgveK9C4mYo1GYuLf83 vYqcHDCQ4s1fAvA4zbmzJLsJhjKJ+U9zjPV1uMjIeGDgxzEv0+AIuSOyMsVch17SaxOS Vl4qMME03Lqu9zWToD5D+Hgy73wp6Bk/T8hXlF8lLOlBsrITq9Z4HljfjE6EbJC1YsN3 cs1Mq7k/OSNY/WBIKVKAzbF7fYH5b11fGj3lfwwrYkvtN+Gk8Qbm7G4aqxMptE9lTQnC JM2Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQllQizKr8xUEdPOuoIeL1hlzMIY04Lq+hfCKjAIEfVyUpqt5bpO+hx7hhzCHdv0rlum+pBy
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.91.16 with SMTP id k16mr8322995vcm.21.1377884705162; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.116.135 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 01:45:05 +0800
Message-ID: <CAAzoce4Q-gwr9u4cCSxZ5Wfxhj2JsPDvEKnRZ305oLnaTLR7UA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu>
To: "6tsch@ietf.org" <6tsch@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b343f1a64909404e52dc8dc"
Subject: [6tsch] (no subject)
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: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 17:45:13 -0000

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