I think both of the two format are fine. But, if IEEE802.15 recommends the
second one, I think we should choose the second.
ThanksQin
On Monday, January 11, 2016 11:17 AM, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
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, 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]> 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]
<[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 restrictseach Payload IE to only one
sub-type ID and content, i.e. no nesting. The advantages of this recommended
scheme is thatit eliminates one octet from the total Payload IE, it allows a
full 256sub-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 KinneyKinney Consulting LLCIEEE 802.15 WG vice chair, SC chairISA100
co-chair, ISA100.20 chairO: [email protected]
On 8, Jan2016, at 10:14, Tengfei Chang <[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]
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
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
