Hi Pascal, "This particular work will focus on IP traffic since the work on tracks is not yet advanced enough to specify their requirements for OTF operations. " It seems we still limit OTF to IP traffic. My previous concern still holds and I tend to disagree with the sentence above from charter2.0 description for the following reasons:
* First, in 6tisch architecture draft, it is mentioned that a track can be built on soft cells. * Second, if OTF is limited to IP traffic, OTF appears to me a purely layer-3 (or IP layer) mechanism. Then, why 6TiSCH WG handles IP-layer-only mechanism? Should it be beyond the scope of 6TiSCH WG? * Third, Charter2.0 implies some work to be done and/or work-in-progress. I feel whether we can use "this work is not fully done" as a reason to exclude it from the charter 2.0. Just my 2 cents. Thanks, Chonggang From: 6tisch [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert) Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 11:49 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [6tisch] OTF: IP or not IP? Dear all: Following up on the comments at the interim, My suggestion is to update item 3 as follows: 3. Produce an "On-the-fly" (OTF) specification to enable a distributed dynamic scheduling of time slots with the capability for IoT routers to appropriate chunks of the matrix without starving, or interfering with, other 6TiSCH nodes. This particular work will focus on IP traffic since the work on tracks is not yet advanced enough to specify their requirements for OTF operations. I remove the 'for IP traffic' within the main text to indicate that the initial focus is N IP traffic but I hope that now it is more clear that future work on tracks is not precluded. Does that address the comment? Cheers, Pascal
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
