IETF Logo Mail Archive

[lp-wan] Doub about sending missing tiles

Rodrigo Muñoz Lara <rmunozlara@ing.uchile.cl> Fri, 27 December 2019 13:34 UTC

Return-Path: <rmunozlara@ing.uchile.cl>
X-Original-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4F9C12006E for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 05:34:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ing.uchile.cl header.b=QnguOEGn; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ing.uchile.cl header.b=QnguOEGn
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 uIh0EXf814Ia for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 05:34:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.cec.uchile.cl (mail2.cec.uchile.cl [200.9.100.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A770120046 for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 05:34:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.cec.uchile.cl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.cec.uchile.cl (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7EAEA0809 for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 10:34:10 -0300 (-03)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.cec.uchile.cl C7EAEA0809
Authentication-Results: mail2.cec.uchile.cl; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ing.uchile.cl
Authentication-Results: mail2.cec.uchile.cl; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rmunozlara@ing.uchile.cl
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.cec.uchile.cl C7EAEA0809
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ing.uchile.cl; s=default; t=1577453650; bh=tP+2S7tQ6xhOU/kKXK8BdiSkmcyh2DvZng+rLy4/VZw=; h=From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=QnguOEGnN70dkr+0VRecfkiPMDQVSOMwBmVrVXi+9Sal3B6POZub8UkJ83c7s+fL8 3ijk1QZqQ4E/AIshROIX8IpAfQ7uO26cv5cgFCaq3ooT8J6+Pn760ZJTopIwEaaWut HfSCWVyoOpcVkuBdKc3Hc2CHXcUChWkG1cRdddLE=
Received: from mail-vs1-f50.google.com (mail-vs1-f50.google.com [209.85.217.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (not verified)) by mail.cec.uchile.cl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45C4AA0815 for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 10:34:10 -0300 (-03)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.cec.uchile.cl 45C4AA0815
Authentication-Results: mail2.cec.uchile.cl; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ing.uchile.cl
Authentication-Results: mail2.cec.uchile.cl; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rmunozlara@ing.uchile.cl
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.cec.uchile.cl 45C4AA0815
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ing.uchile.cl; s=default; t=1577453650; bh=tP+2S7tQ6xhOU/kKXK8BdiSkmcyh2DvZng+rLy4/VZw=; h=From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=QnguOEGnN70dkr+0VRecfkiPMDQVSOMwBmVrVXi+9Sal3B6POZub8UkJ83c7s+fL8 3ijk1QZqQ4E/AIshROIX8IpAfQ7uO26cv5cgFCaq3ooT8J6+Pn760ZJTopIwEaaWut HfSCWVyoOpcVkuBdKc3Hc2CHXcUChWkG1cRdddLE=
Received: by mail-vs1-f50.google.com with SMTP id x123so16900087vsc.2 for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 05:34:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUdU356LszzR2QAjBsK+evtJ61FWBkEsIP3ZTqtODlf+HHC6b1h 4VqV7Cv9LkwkZSbykQETVXcy9YAzxDfJ5jbWFWI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy8La/FL7hDYNPRgBTq9vXTGEqN3XUqg3lcFWr1flXTIUhSDlC3dO2tbCyZCBYOV5mAxd0wfhmxHxN1jKZSRec=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:250:: with SMTP id a16mr14766573vsq.167.1577453648867; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 05:34:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Rodrigo Muñoz Lara <rmunozlara@ing.uchile.cl>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 10:33:58 -0300
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CALJ+G3UODKCPD=JDC0x-0rE663FcJj0P5N3eHCz9m--=jZby-g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALJ+G3UODKCPD=JDC0x-0rE663FcJj0P5N3eHCz9m--=jZby-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: lp-wan@ietf.org
Cc: ogimenez@semtech.com, Sandra Cespedes <scespedes@ing.uchile.cl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006415d5059aaf8c54"
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lp-wan/SqsGlaWwTP3R08GlkcSaFyBwBFo>
Subject: [lp-wan] Doub about sending missing tiles
X-BeenThere: lp-wan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Low-Power Wide Area Networking \(LP-WAN\), also known as LPWA or Low-Rate WAN \(LR-WAN\)" <lp-wan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lp-wan>, <mailto:lp-wan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lp-wan/>
List-Post: <mailto:lp-wan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lp-wan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan>, <mailto:lp-wan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:34:19 -0000

Dear Author,

I have a question about draft "draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc-24".
In section 8.3.1.2 say:

"*On receiving a SCHC ACK, if the W field in the SCHC ACK not corresponds
to the last window of the SCHC Packet:*

   -

   *MUST send SCHC Fragment messages containing the tiles that
reported missing in the SCHC ACK*"



What happened if the missing tiles do not fit in a SCHC fragment?

Regards

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email