(Moving discussion of the Abstract in "RE: [6tisch] #40 (minimal): Ralph's INT 
AREA review on minimal" to this thread.)


> On Dec 18, 2015, at 9:13 AM 12/18/15, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Dear all;
> 
> In order to address Ralph's issues on the minimal draft, we proposed a 
> rewording of the abstract and the introduction. 
> This reopens  a 2-weeks period of last call for these particular sections, 
> with the text as below.
> If you disagree with the text, please let us know before January 1st.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Pascal
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Droms (rdroms) 
> Sent: lundi 14 décembre 2015 19:35
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Summary of proposed resolution for issue 40 V3
> 
> 
>> On Dec 14, 2015, at 11:16 AM 12/14/15, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) 
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello Ralph:
>> 
>> If you’re OK with this round, we’ll open a one week call to the WG to check 
>> consensus.
>> The proposed replacement for slotted aloha is subject to change again 
>> in that phase J
>> 
>> Please let us know;
> 
> Assessing WG consensus is OK with me.
> 
> - Ralph
> 
>> 
>> Pascal
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----------
>> 
>> Abstract update:
>> 
>> BEFORE
>> 
>> 
>> --------------
>> Abstract
>> 
>>  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.
>> 
>> ---------------
>> AFTER
>> 
>> ---------------
>> Abstract
>> 
>> This document describes a minimal mode of operation for a 6TiSCH 
>> Network, to provide 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 mode uses a collection of protocols including the 6LoWPAN 
>> framework and RPL to enable shared access operations over a static 
>> TSCH schedule

I'll reiterate my suggestion to use a higher level description here in the 
abstract:

This minimal mode uses a collection of protocols including the 6LoWPAN 
framework and RPL to enable interoperable IPv6 connectivity over
IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH with minimal network configuration and infrastructure.

>> 
>> -------------
>> -------------
>> -------------
>> 
>> Intro update:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> BEFORE
>> 
>> 
>> --------------
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> AFTER
>> 
>> --------------
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>>  The 6TiSCH [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] architecture requires the
>>  use of both RPL and the 6LoWPAN adaptation layer framework
>>  ([RFC4944], [RFC6282]) as defined over IEEE 802.14.5.
>>  6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery [RFC6775] (ND)  is also required to
>>  exchange Compression Contexts,  form IPv6 addresses and register
>>  them for the purpose of Duplicate Address Detection, Address
>>  Resolution and Neighbor Unreachability detection over one
>>  TSCH link.
>> 
>>  Nodes in a IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH network follow a communication
>>  schedule.  A network using the simple mode of operation uses a
>>  static schedule.
>> 
>>  This specification defines an operational parameters and procedures

s/an//

>>  for a minimal mode of operation to build a 6TiSCH  Network, using
>>  the Routing Protocol for LLNs (RPL) and a static TSCH Schedule.

Either delete ", using the Routing Protocol for LLNs (RPL) and a static TSCH 
Schedule" or mention all the other protocols in use here, as well.

Do you want to mention the join process?  Security?

>> The 802.15.4 TSCH mode, the 6LoWPAN framework, RPL [RFC6550],
>>  and its Objective Function 0 (OF0) [RFC6552], are used unmodified,
>>  but  parameters and particular operations of TSCH and RPL 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 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].
>> 
>> Pascal
> 
> <signature.asc>_______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch

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

Reply via email to