> On Dec 9, 2015, at 3:58 AM 12/9/15, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hello Ralph:
> 
>> I had a hard time mapping from the points in my review to the issues
>> tracked in bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal/issues/
>> 
>> In particular, I don't see where these comments were addressed:
>> 
>> 1. Goals and requirements are unclear
>> 
>> The requirements for this document are unclear to me.  Exactly what
>> services would a "minimal mode of operation" provide?  The Abstract
>> and  most of the document talks about the operation of an IEEE
>> 802.15.4 TSCH  network, yet the title of the document is "Minimal 6TiSCH 
>> Configuration".
>> Does a network that follows these rules provide an L2 IEEE 802.15.4
>> service, an
>> IPv6 6TiSCH service, ???

This is the key question I was trying to get an answer for.  I think what I 
read below is that the intention for this document is to define "a set of rules 
for simplest operation of an 6TiSCH network".


>> 
>> Related to this question, does this document describe "a minimal set
>> of  rules to operate an IEEE802.15.4 ...] TSCH network" or a "minimal mode 
>> of  operation"
>> (both text snippets from the Abstract).
> 
> 
> This issue is related with the next. I'll be proposing text at the end of 
> this mail;

OK.

>> 2. Requirement for RPL is ill-advised
>> 
>> This document seems to be focused on IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH operational
>> parameters.  Yet, it calls for the use of RPL, which seems to me to be
>> a  highly undesirable entangling of protocols at different layers of the  
>> protocol stack.
>> IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH is expected to be used in networks  that don't use RPL.
>> 
> 
> 6TiSCH includes the mesh support by default, which is kind of natural for 
> 802.15.4 as opposed to, say, Bluetooth.
> So we care to get interoperation at that level as well and include that in 
> the minimum support.
> 
> 6TiSCH was put together to address the NBMA nature of the multihop network as 
> opposed to considering only one hop, like BTLE does, which would probably be 
> have been 6lo work.

My key question is whether this document aimed at a description of how to use 
IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH or 6TiSCH.  As the goal is a description of 6TiSCH, a 
description of how to use RPL is, of course, appropriate.

> 
>> My understanding of the document is that RPL is assumed to be in use
>> because it is required in a 6TiSCH network.  RPL is then used to
>> generate  the Join Priority through the DAGRank function as specified
>> in section  7.2.  The use of RPL implies to me the configuration and
>> operation of a  full IPv6 stack, which hardly seems like a minimal mode of 
>> operation for  IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH.
> 
> Looks like a definition issue, maybe we can reword the intro. An abstract 
> "minimal mode of operation for  IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH " does not need IP at all 
> but that's not what we are defining here. We are defining a "minimal mode of 
> operation for IPv6 over a IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH network", in other words the 
> minimal thing that is needed to build a 6TiSCH network, which includes the 
> capability to support multihop operation, which includes synchronization.
> 
> 6TiSCH requires RPL for data and time synchronization over multiple hops. 
> That capability is part of our bare minimum. If someone only cares for hub 
> and spoke, then RPL is not needed, but supporting only that model is below 
> the bar of the 6TiSCH bare minimum.

I still think tying the join process to the use of RPL is a bad idea, but 
that's a minor design point for the WG.

>> I looked at draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-13, and I see that there are no
>> changes to the abstract or the introduction.  As I read that text,
>> this document is intended to give minimal operational parameters for
>> IEEE802.15.4 TSCH.  However, the title of the document is "Minimal
>> 6TiSCH Configuration" and the content goes far beyond the parameters
>> needed to run IEEE802.15.4 TSCH.  As an aside, I don't see any mention
>> of TiSCH or 6TiSCH in the document, other than in the title.
> 
> I agree, Ralph;
> 
> Proposals:
> 
> 
> 
> --------------
> Abstract (before)
> 
>   This document describes the minimal set of rules to operate an IEEE
>   802.15.4 Timeslotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) network.  This minimal
>   mode of operation can be used during network bootstrap, as a fall-
>   back mode of operation when no dynamic scheduling solution is
>   available or functioning, or during early interoperability testing
>   and development.
> 
> ----------
> Abstract (after)
> 
>   This document describes the minimal set of rules to operate a 6TiSCH
>   Network, which provides IPv6 connectivity over a Non-Broadcast
>   Multi-Access (NBMA) mesh that is formed of IEEE 802.15.4
>   Timeslotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) links.  This minimal set only
>   provides static scheduling, but it can be complemented in operating
>   networks by distributed, or centrally controlled, dynamic scheduling
>   extensions.
> 
> ----------

I apologize if I appear to be wordsmithing (or even bikeshedding).

I don't think the first sentence is right.  I think what this document 
describes is a simple mode of operation to provide IPv6-over-6Tisch service.  
The motivation for this mode of operation is testing, initial deployment and/or 
"required to implement" to provide a baseline of interoperability.  I think the 
focus should be on the purpose of the document as a whole and the details of 
the scheduling mechanism can be left for the Introduction.


> 
> ------------
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Requirements Language
> 
>   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
>   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
> 
> 2.  Introduction
> 
>   The nodes in a IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH network follow a communication
>   schedule.  The entity (centralized or decentralized) responsible for
>   building and maintaining that schedule has precise control over the
>   trade-off between the network's latency, bandwidth, reliability and
>   power consumption.  During early interoperability testing and
>   development, however, simplicity is more important than efficiency.
>   One goal of this document is to define the simplest set of rules for
>   building a TSCH-compliant network, at the necessary price of lesser
>   efficiency.  Yet, this minimal mode of operation MAY also be used
>   during network bootstrap before any schedule is installed into the
>   network so nodes can self-organize and the management and
>   configuration information be distributed.  In addition, the minimal
>   configuration MAY be used as a fall-back mode of operation, ensuring
>   connectivity of nodes in case that dynamic scheduling mechanisms fail
>   or are not available.  The IEEE 802.15.4 specification provides a
>   mechanism whereby the details of slotframe length, timeslot timing,
>   and channel hopping pattern are communicated when a node time
>   synchronizes to the network [IEEE802154].  This document describes
>   specific settings for these parameters.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> 1.  Introduction
> 
>   A 6TiSCH Network provides IPv6 connectivity over a Non-Broadcast
>   Multi-Access (NBMA) mesh that is formed of IEEE 802.15.4
>   Timeslotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) links.

Good - a crisp definition of "6TiSCH" is critical.

>   Nodes in a IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH network follow a communication
>   schedule.  An entity (centralized or decentralized) responsible for
>   building and maintaining that schedule has precise control over the
>   trade-off between the network's latency, bandwidth, reliability and
>   power consumption. The degree of optimization that is obtained
>   depends on the capabilities of the controlling entity and the acceptable
>   complexity for a given deployment. In a minimal configuration,
>   this controlling entity is omitted, and the schedule is static.
> 
>   The IEEE 802.15.4 specification provides a mechanism whereby the
>   schedule, expressed as details of slotframe length, timeslot timing,
>   and channel hopping pattern, is obtained by a node at the time it joins
>   the network [IEEE802154].
> 
>   This specification defines a Minimal Configuration to build a 6TiSCH
>   Network, using the Routing Protocol for LLNs (RPL) and a static TSCH
>   Schedule.  The 802.15.4 TSCH mode, RPL [RFC6550], and its Objective
>   Function 0 (OF0) [RFC6552], are used unmodified, but parameters and
>   particular operations are specified  to guarantee interoperability
>   between nodes in a 6TiSCH Network.
> 
>   More advanced work is expected in the future to complement the
>   Minimal Configuration with dynamic operations that can adapt the
>   Schedule to the needs of the traffic in run time.

What about all the other protocols required to run an IPv6 network?

I would assume that the reader knows about IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH, RPL, etc., and 
their principles of operation.  In the interest of conciseness, I recommend 
eliding motivations and descriptions of protocols that are available elsewhere. 
 If I were reading this document, I would want to know what protocols I need to 
implement, what is the default operation of those protocols, what operational 
parameters a device will receive through the network, what defaults a device 
should use for other operational parameters.

> 2.  Requirements Language
> 
>   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
>   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> 
> The changes above attempt to address Ralph's comments, but also Brian's point 
> that 2119 language should come after the introduction, and removes 
> unnecessary text on particular usages which appeared to limit the 
> applicability of the draft.
> 
> 
> 
>> I really need to get clarity on the purpose and scope of the document
>> before I can continue my re-review.
> 
> Yes; and ultimately the purpose is to match charter item 3:
> 
> "
> 3. Produce "Minimal 6TiSCH Configuration" defining how to build a 6TiSCH 
> network using the Routing Protocol for LLNs (RPL) and a static TSCH schedule. 
> It is expected that RPL and the Objective Function 0 (OF0) will be reused 
> as-is.

On reflection, I think this charter item is incomplete.  It focuses on only two 
aspects of how to build a simple 6TiSCH network: scheduling and routing.  A 
complete IPv6-over-TSCH definition needs to specify the use of 6LoWPAN, ND, 
address management, prefix management, etc.

Ideally, this document would be paired with a complete IPv6-over-6TSCH 
specification, so that this document specifies only those particular 
operational parameters required for the simple subset of the IPv6-over-6TSCH 
specification.  I understand that there is a circular dependency in that it's 
likely this simple 6TiSCH definition will be needed for development and testing 
before a complete 6TiSCH definition is published.  In that case, this document 
will need to be a standalone document and include descriptions of how to use 
all of the protocols required for 6TiSCH service.

> The work will include a best practice configuration for RPL and OF0 operation 
> over the static schedule. Based on that experience the group may produce a 
> requirements draft for OF0 extensions, to be studied in ROLL.
> "
> 
> Huge thanks for your patience and your willingness help / make sure we do the 
> right thing.
> 
> Take care,
> 
> Pascal
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ralph Droms (rdroms)
>> Sent: mardi 8 décembre 2015 15:56
>> To: [email protected]
>> Cc: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [6tisch] #40 (minimal): Ralph's INT AREA review on minimal
>> 
>> 
>> I had a hard time mapping from the points in my review to the issues tracked 
>> in
>> bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal/issues/
>> 
>> In particular, I don't see where these comments were addressed:
>> 
>> 1. Goals and requirements are unclear
>> 
>> The requirements for this document are unclear to me.  Exactly what services
>> would a "minimal mode of operation" provide?  The Abstract and most of the
>> document talks about the operation of an IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH network, yet the
>> title of the document is "Minimal 6TiSCH Configuration".
>> Does a network that follows these rules provide an L2 IEEE 802.15.4 service, 
>> an
>> IPv6 6TiSCH service, ???
>> 
>> Related to this question, does this document describe "a minimal set of 
>> rules to
>> operate an IEEE802.15.4 ...] TSCH network" or a "minimal mode of operation"
>> (both text snippets from the Abstract).
>> 
>> 2. Requirement for RPL is ill-advised
>> 
>> This document seems to be focused on IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH operational
>> parameters.  Yet, it calls for the use of RPL, which seems to me to be a 
>> highly
>> undesirable entangling of protocols at different layers of the protocol 
>> stack.
>> IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH is expected to be used in networks that don't use RPL.
>> 
>> My understanding of the document is that RPL is assumed to be in use because 
>> it
>> is required in a 6TiSCH network.  RPL is then used to generate the Join 
>> Priority
>> through the DAGRank function as specified in section 7.2.  The use of RPL 
>> implies
>> to me the configuration and operation of a full IPv6 stack, which hardly 
>> seems
>> like a minimal mode of operation for IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH.
>> 
>> I looked at draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-13, and I see that there are no 
>> changes to
>> the abstract or the introduction.  As I read that text, this document is 
>> intended
>> to give minimal operational parameters for IEEE802.15.4 TSCH.  However, the
>> title of the document is "Minimal 6TiSCH Configuration" and the content goes
>> far beyond the parameters needed to run IEEE802.15.4 TSCH.  As an aside, I
>> don't see any mention of TiSCH or 6TiSCH in the document, other than in the
>> title.
>> 
>> I really need to get clarity on the purpose and scope of the document before 
>> I
>> can continue my re-review.
>> 
>> - Ralph
>> 
>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:20 AM 11/30/15, 6tisch issue tracker
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> #40: Ralph's INT AREA review on minimal
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Comment (by [email protected]):
>>> 
>>> Xavi addressed comments one by one, tracked under bitbucket as
>>> https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal/issues/
>>> All issues are solved but the intended status that we will track with
>>> a separate ticket
>>> 
>>> --
>>> -----------------------------------+----------------------------------
>>> -----------------------------------+--
>>> Reporter:  [email protected]     |       Owner:  [email protected]
>>>   Type:  defect                 |      Status:  new
>>> Priority:  major                  |   Milestone:  milestone1
>>> Component:  minimal                |     Version:  1.0
>>> Severity:  Submitted WG Document  |  Resolution:
>>> Keywords:                         |
>>> -----------------------------------+----------------------------------
>>> -----------------------------------+--
>>> 
>>> Ticket URL:
>>> <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6tisch/trac/ticket/40#comment:1>
>>> 6tisch <https://tools.ietf.org/6tisch/>
>>> IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 6tisch mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch

Reply via email to