IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [core] Time Scale Option

Klaus Hartke <hartke@projectcool.de> Tue, 29 May 2018 09:37 UTC

Return-Path: <hartke@projectcool.de>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3711126BF0; Tue, 29 May 2018 02:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_FAIL=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p_3ghea-GECj; Tue, 29 May 2018 02:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wp382.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp382.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8597::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A35412025C; Tue, 29 May 2018 02:37:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-f178.google.com ([209.85.220.178]); authenticated by wp382.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) id 1fNb4X-0006qd-1u; Tue, 29 May 2018 11:37:41 +0200
Received: by mail-qk0-f178.google.com with SMTP id z75-v6so10932329qkb.6; Tue, 29 May 2018 02:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwe7+v6MTJP27rhFDs5ucz3OyHt+TmkOq7V99+6mD2e/lmEeGMqW kg3ph+l2qmh7/2ZPgqPCbEezWx9mtvumYlyfUPk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJs7hqJ9hfL4V9X5fMMKDZPLZ2DOk9qpckXfqv0M9v1ag4MpCjhyqkO+nBeITMzQRPoJT8MlrmV9amCUY0NSwI=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:be42:: with SMTP id o63-v6mr14302670qkf.102.1527586659888; Tue, 29 May 2018 02:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a0c:c352:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 29 May 2018 02:36:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABONVQYBFKSeY0boxwUvskODA0YxUSu1qDPOkMXbrJRxoFiwOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABONVQYBFKSeY0boxwUvskODA0YxUSu1qDPOkMXbrJRxoFiwOg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Klaus Hartke <hartke@projectcool.de>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 11:36:59 +0200
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAAzbHvZCF7qJpZUhQ8=iLF23uoBUo8KX0tLYVJSJwhh-YV475A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAzbHvZCF7qJpZUhQ8=iLF23uoBUo8KX0tLYVJSJwhh-YV475A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Laurent Toutain <laurent.toutain@imt-atlantique.fr>
Cc: "core@ietf.org WG" <core@ietf.org>, lp-wan <lp-wan@ietf.org>, Ana Minaburo <ana@ackl.io>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de; hartke@projectcool.de; 1527586665; bc536641;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1fNb4X-0006qd-1u
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/IIezEFAAzGWS9yDTF0cPjvb1uJw>
Subject: Re: [core] Time Scale Option
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 09:37:48 -0000

Wouldn't ACK_TIMEOUT, MAX_LATENCY, etc. need to be adjusted, since
EXCHANGE_LIFETIME is just a calculated value?

Klaus


On 29 May 2018 at 11:01, Laurent Toutain
<laurent.toutain@imt-atlantique.fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> We have published few month ago a draft defining a new CoAP option.
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-toutain-core-time-scale/
>
>
> The main idea is to inform a server when devices will not have the same
> reaction time. Current CoAP RFC defines a default 5 minutes window during
> which any message will be consider as a retransmission.  This delay is too
> small for LPWAN network, where small bandwidth, duty cycles are introducing
> larger delays. One solution is to change the default window value, but this
> period will be too long for “regular” devices and force the server to
> memorize more message ID.
>
>
>
> That’s why we propose the Time Scale option, the client informs the server
> of the window period where messages will be considered as retransmitted. The
> server will be informed for this device and will adapt its timers.
>
>
>
> We would like to know, as we discussed during London IETF, what is the
> position of the core wg on this option.
>
>
>
> Ana and Laurent
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> core@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email