Dear Lijo, Many thanks for the clarification. I am good now.
Best, Georgios ____________________________________ Georgios Z. Papadopoulos, Ph.D. Associate Professor, IMT Atlantique, Rennes web: www.georgiospapadopoulos.com <http://www.georgiospapadopoulos.com/> twitter: @gzpapadopoulos <https://twitter.com/gzpapadopoulos?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http://georgiospapadopoulos.com/> ____________________________________ > On Jul 24, 2018, at 12:04, Lijo Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Georgios, > > Thanks for the feedback, responding to your query : > > Deadline Time (DT) by itself does not guarantee deterministic behaviour, but > its information enables intermediate nodes to implement delay sensitive > scheduling and routing algorithms towards achieving deterministic behaviour. > > As a use case application of our draft, we implemented a basic EDF policy in > OpenWSN 6tisch stack. > > Please find the link for our openwsn implementation > > https://github.com/openwsn-berkeley/openwsn-fw/tree/develop/openapps/uexpiration > > <https://github.com/openwsn-berkeley/openwsn-fw/tree/develop/openapps/uexpiration> > > > Thanks & Regards, > > Lijo Thomas > > > From: 6lo [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Georgios Z. Papadopoulos > Sent: 24 July 2018 13:49 > To: Lijo Thomas > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Malati > Hegde; Samita Chakrabarti; Gabriel Montenegro; lo; Charlie Perkins; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [6lo] working group last call (wg lc) on > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time/ > > Hello Lijo, > > Thank you so much for your detailed comments. I appreciate it very much. > I am happy with your response, I just have one last clarification point, see > below: > > >> On Jul 24, 2018, at 09:38, Lijo Thomas <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >> Dear Georgios, >> >> Thanks for your valuable suggestions and we really appreciate for taking >> your valuable time for the review . >> >> Please find our comments inline below marked as (*** [LT]) >> >> We will be happy to receive your further inputs !!! >> >> >> Thanks & Regards, >> >> Lijo Thomas >> >> >> From: 6lo [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] On >> Behalf Of Georgios Z. Papadopoulos >> Sent: 17 July 2018 21:40 >> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>; Malati Hegde; Samita Chakrabarti; Gabriel >> Montenegro; lo; Charlie Perkins; [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [6lo] working group last call (wg lc) on >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time/ >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time/> >> >> Dear Lijo and co-authors, >> >> I went through the draft, please find my comments below: >> — — >> >> High level comments: >> */ [GP] The draft defines the Deadline Time (DT), but it is not clear to me >> how the arrival of the datagram within this pre-defined DT period is >> guaranteed? >> Indeed, the draft provides the necessary DT information, however, the only >> action I could observe is the delay-sensitive datagram to be dropped if the >> indicated DT is elapsed. >> >> >> *** [LT] Yes, the Deadline Time (DT) specifies the maximum allowable delay >> before which the packet should be delivered to the destination. The proposed >> draft provides a mechanism for transporting the DT information. By >> incorporating >> deadline based scheduling/routing mechanisms within the intermediate nodes >> using DT, one could guarantee deterministic behavior in terms of delay. > > > [GP] Would you agree that this draft do not guarantees deterministic behavior > in terms of delay, but it provides > the information of maximum allowable delay for a packet to be delivered to > the destination? > > To be more precise, for instance, lets us consider the following multi-hop > network A—> B —> C. > According this draft, it will required 2 timeslots (or 20ms) for a packet to > be delivered at the DODAG Root C. > However, if there is an external interference from A to B, then A may need to > retransmit multiple times > in order the datagram to be received by B. Then there are two options > according to the draft: > a) the datagram is dropped, to reduce the traffic, energy consumption. > b) the datagram is delivered even if the deadline time is crossed, i.e., as > you said in your e-mail “in some scenarios where the intention is also to > know the total delay experienced by the packets in a network” > > In both bases, a and b, there is no guarantee that the datagram will be > delivered in predefined time, i.e., in deterministic behavior. > > — — > Thank you so much, > Georgios > > ____________________________________ > > Georgios Z. Papadopoulos, Ph.D. > Associate Professor, IMT Atlantique, Rennes > > web: www.georgiospapadopoulos.com <http://www.georgiospapadopoulos.com/> > twitter: @gzpapadopoulos > <https://twitter.com/gzpapadopoulos?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http://georgiospapadopoulos.com/> > ____________________________________ > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > [ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at: > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA > <https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA> & Twitter: @cdacindia ] > > This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy > all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use, > disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email > is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
