Simon, Your suggestions make sense to me.
Others? Thomas On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Simon Duquennoy <[email protected]> wrote: > That was an important fix, thanks, but now we seem to have an new > inconsistency. In 6.2, > "Join Priority of any node MUST be equivalent to the result of the > function DAGRank(rank)" > implies the DAG root has a rank of 1. However, IEEE802.15.4e-2012 > stipulates that the PAN coordinator's join priority is 0 (section > 5.2.4.13). This means that the PAN coordinator cannot be DAG root -- surely > not what we want. > > My suggestion is to define Join Priority as "DAGRank(rank)-1". > > Two more comments on section 6.2: > * This statement is currently inconsistent with having JP = DAGRank(rank): > "The Join Priority of the DAG root is zero, i.e., EBs sent from the DAG > root are sent with Join Priority equal to 0." > * The whole paragraph reads like there are possibly several time sources > (so far so good). However, this sentence implies there is only one: "If > connectivity to the time source neighbor is lost, a new time source > neighbor MUST be chosen among the neighbors in the routing parent set." > > Thanks, > Simon > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Thomas Watteyne < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Yup, good catch! >> >> On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Xavier Vilajosana < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dear Nicola, >>> >>> thanks for your comment! I reviewed both rfc6550 and rfc6552 and you are >>> right. >>> >>> I corrected the draft as follows: >>> >>> >>> +-------+ >>> | 0 | R(0) = 0 >>> | | DAGRank(R(0)) = 0 >>> +-------+ >>> | >>> | >>> +-------+ >>> | 1 | R(1)=R(0)+683=683 >>> | | DAGRank(R(1)) = 2 >>> +-------+ >>> ... >>> >>> substituted by this >>> >>> +-------+ >>> | 0 | R(minHopRankIncrease) = 256 >>> | | DAGRank(R(0)) = 1 >>> +-------+ >>> | >>> | >>> +-------+ >>> | 1 | R(1)=R(0)+683 = 939 >>> | | DAGRank(R(1)) = 3 >>> +-------+ >>> ... >>> >>> thanks you very much! >>> regards, >>> Xavi >>> >>> 2015-05-22 19:43 GMT+02:00 Nicola Accettura <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> Hi Xavi, Kris, all, >>>> >>>> reading RFC 6550, I find: >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. page 70: >>>> >>>> A DODAG root MUST advertise a Rank of ROOT_RANK. >>>> >>>> 2. page 112: >>>> >>>> ROOT_RANK: This is the Rank for a DODAG root. ROOT_RANK has a value >>>> of MinHopRankIncrease (as advertised by the DODAG root), such >>>> that DAGRank(ROOT_RANK) is 1. >>>> >>>> >>>> So that the example in section 9.1.2 of draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-06 >>>> seems not compliant with RFC 6550 (unless node 0 is a virtual DODAG root). >>>> >>>> Am I missing something? >>>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> Nicola >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 6tisch mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 6tisch mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6tisch mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch >> >> >
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
