Thank you for the figures, I agree on both, especially the second one. The advantages of the recommended approach are: one octet shorter for case of single subtype ID and 256 available subtype ID addresses for any length.
Sincerely, Pat On 11, Jan2016, at 9:19, Tengfei Chang <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Pat, all, I would like to make sure whether this format will be the right format for the plugtest and everyone will agree. The attached is the document 15-15-0939-02. There are two options for the format we will use in the plugtest: 1. we use what defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-sublayer-04 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-sublayer-04>, which use the format defined in IEEE802.15.4e-2012, section 5.2.4.3 (page 81). If we decide to use this one, we need short/ long type of the subIE. Bits: 0-10 11-14 15 Octets: 2 32-35 36-39 40-47 Octets Bits: 0-10 11-14 15 Payload IE Content Length Group ID Type (0b1) Length Sub-type ID Type Ver Code SFID other field Length (0x00) Group ID (0xf) Type (0b1) Payload IE Payload IE Content Payload Termination IE 2. we use what define in document 15-15-0939-02, which use the format defined in last page of the document: For example the 6P command defined in sublayer draft: the payload will be: Bits: 0-10 11-14 15 16-23 24-27 28-31 32-39 octets Bits: 0-10 11-14 15 Payload IE Content Length Group ID Type (0b1) Sub-type ID Ver Code SFID other field Length (0x00) Group ID (0xf) Type (0b1) Payload IE Payload IE Content Payload Termination IE Do we agree on the second one? Tengfei On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Tengfei Chang <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I see. Thanks a lot Pat for the information! I found the document you mentioned. I will update the format in the Golden Images. Have a good day! Tengfei On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:25 PM, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Tengfei; The IEEE 802.15 IG 6T recommended a format for sub-IEs in document 15-15-0939-02 sent to this reflector on 30 November 2015. The following is an excerpt from that document: "Accordingly, the IEEE 802.15 IG 6T recommends that the IETF use an alternate scheme that restricts each Payload IE to only one sub-type ID and content, i.e. no nesting. The advantages of this recommended scheme is that it eliminates one octet from the total Payload IE, it allows a full 256 sub-type IDs, and each sub-type length can be up to 2046 octets.” Therefore, if 6tisch adopts the above recommendation, there would be no long or short types. Pat Pat Kinney Kinney Consulting LLC IEEE 802.15 WG vice chair, SC chair ISA100 co-chair, ISA100.20 chair O: +1.847.960.3715 <tel:%2B1.847.960.3715> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> On 8, Jan2016, at 10:14, Tengfei Chang <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hello all, As I mentioned on the Call, the 6top sublayer draft seems didn't define the type of subIE used by 6P command ,long or short type? Let me know if I missed it from the draft! Thanks you! Regard, Tengfei _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch> <15-15-0939-02-0000-IETF_6tisch_IE_Information.docx>
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
