Hi; Sorry I missed the call due to being at the IEEE 802 session last week.
I would like to inform you that the IEEE 802.15 work group (WG) has approved the IEEE 802.15.12 Upper Layer Interface (ULI) Project Authorization Request (PAR). The next step is for the IEEE 802 WGs review the PAR and suggest corrective language. Should they approve it, it will then go to the IEEE New Standards Committee (NesCom) for final approval before it becomes a fully approved project. You can download the PAR document: 15-15-0760-06 (https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/15/15-15-0760-06-0llc-802-15-12-par-draft.docx <https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/15/15-15-0760-06-0llc-802-15-12-par-draft.docx>). I have included the Scope of the PAR below for your convenience: 802.15.12 Scope: This standard defines an Upper Layer Interface (ULI) sublayer in Layer 2 (L2), between Layer 3 (L3) and the IEEE 802.15.4 Media Access Control (MAC) sublayer. The ULI provides interfaces for data, control, and management information. The ULI adapts L3 protocols and provides operational configuration including network and regulation requirements of the IEEE 802.15.4 MAC. Furthermore, the ULI integrates upper Layer 2 sub-layer (L2+) functionalities focused on interfacing to IEEE Std 802.15.4 such as Key Management Protocols (KMP), L2 routing (L2R) protocols, and Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) 6TiSCH Operation Protocol (6TOP) for optional use. Finally, the ULI provides protocol differentiation, using mechanisms such as EtherType, to support multiple, diverse higher layer protocols. 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 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> On 22, Jan2016, at 11:04, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Connection details Date: 7-8AM Pacific: http://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=100,12,5392171,1850147&h=100&date=2016-01-22&sln=15-16 <http://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=100,12,5392171,1850147&h=100&date=2016-01-22&sln=15-16> Webex recording: https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/lsr.php?RCID=67f581ad9b624c5cb98a0d2fe3535db7 <https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/lsr.php?RCID=67f581ad9b624c5cb98a0d2fe3535db7> Wiki: https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/meetings/wiki/160122_webex <https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/meetings/wiki/160108_webex> Meeting slides: https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/meetings/raw/039a65c5a896825ebbc2c71b24aab75b439a379b/160122_webex/slides_160122_webex.ppt <https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/meetings/raw/039a65c5a896825ebbc2c71b24aab75b439a379b/160122_webex/slides_160122_webex.ppt> Etherpad Link: http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/6tisch?useMonospaceFont=true <http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/6tisch?useMonospaceFont=true> Taking notes (using Etherpad) Thomas Watteyne Pascal Thubert Diego Dujovne Keoma Brun-Laguna Michael Richardson Xavi Vilajosana Simon Duquennoy Present (alphabetically) Thomas Watteyne Pascal Thubert C-Y Lee Diego Dujovne Jonathan Munoz Keoma Brun Michael Richardson Pascal Thubert Patrick Wetterwald Qin Wang S.V.R. Anand Sedat Gormus Shahid Raza Simon Duquennoy Simon Duquennoy Sven Akkermans Tengfei Chang Xavi Vilajosana Zhuo Chen Action Items QIN: will start a discussion on the ML on what we do on information and yang data model Agenda Administrivia [2min] Approval agenda Approval minutes last call rechartering news 6LoRH [20min] draft(s) status ML issues, proposed formats 6top-sublayer [10min] ML Discussion on recommended formats Minimal Draft [15min] impacts on main text from intro changes Suresh's issues Next steps PlugTest [10min] Walk-through (delta) tests related question about the 6lorh and 6top AOB [1min] Minutes · [07.04] Meeting starts · [07.07] Administrivia [2min] · Approval agenda no issues raised, agenda approved Approval minutes last call no issues raised, minutes approved o rechartering news mcr was asked opinion by IESG about 6tisch recharter, wrt ROLL and mcr confirmed it was good. Xavi: we need some information about the layer Pascal: let's not confuse terms Xavi: Thomas: Yang model is extensive, should we start from Draft reduce to the security ? Pascal: question from Benoit is confusing a little bit. Where is the information model ? Thomas: data model = interface draft whereas information model = sublayer draft Qin: suggest we discuss in ML Pascal: can you start thread Qin: OK (ACTION) Thomas: Can we avoid this discussion again ? · [07.15] 6LoRH (Pascal) [20min] draft(s) status Thomas: Pascal: 6LoRH draft adopted https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch-01 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch-01> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch-03 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch-03> Paging system: two documents now. o topic: how do we go certain things, answers tech questions from Tengfei and Simon example 1: case where we have a packet from the DODAG toward the Root (ICMP and UDP) In this case we don't need IP-in-IP ??? Where is the RPI ? slide 9: ICMP example slide 10: UDP example 6LoRH goes BEFORE the IPHC, this is an important addition of the draft node which wants to add a 6LoRH will NOT have to change the IPHC packet things are reversed: IPHC and IP-in-IP goes at the END of the packet as packet progresses, the addresses in 6LoRH are being removed. Different than IPv6. In in 6LoRH: routing head is "consumed": size of 6loRH is reduced as the packet travels from root into the LLN the next hop is the first address in the 6LoRH, NOT the IPv6 destination address (final destination in inner IP-in-IP header) Thomas: Do we have to carry the full IPv6 address in all RHs? Pascal: "normal" case in 6TiSCH: only 2-byte addresses, remaining 112 bits inferred from the source you know what the source of the packet is Simon: about slide 11 removing addresses as you go is good. But how interoperable with RFC6554? all addresses are in RFC6554? Would expect from 6LoRH to compress existing 6554 headers. Pascal: you can reconstruct an RH3 from 6LoRH, but it will not be the same one as if you Michael: important for efficiency. It's possible to deploy nodes with 6LoRH but not turn it on (manageable) why does it matter? Simon: in the routing header, the addresses are not consumed Pascal: 6man might complain. problem with authentication. Simon: big problem? Pascal: we have L2 security, we can trust that routing header will not be compromised. Simon: big sec threat. 6LoRH should not impact 6LoWPAN Pascal: do you want to keep the data in the RH? -technical decision Simon: AH (authentication header). In IPv6, you have to replace the destination address. Pascal: Any RPL packet could be attacked the same way. But it is not because we have L2 security. If we wanted to keep the addresses we could add an index in 6LoRH to ... WG to decide Simon: why couldn't we remove addresses from 6554? Pascal: probably for passing 6man faster. Thomas: the idea of 6554 is to do a version for 6LoWPAN. When we implemented the last plugtest, we realized that we could ping 3 hops away Even if we add an index, we will not pass 6MAN if we have an option not to use it ?? Xavi: 6554 doesn't say anything about what happens the receiver doesn't ... Thomas: we can specify how the AH is calculated Pascal discusses different use cases with the types of the addresses. § the new draft explain the recursive process of popping the first address in RH3-6LoRH, asking text review § If the packet is fragmented, same fragmentation rule as IPHC discussion about where IP-in-IP header goes. Slide 14 about proposed order. when decoding 6LoRH headers, Thomas: Why multiple RH3? Pascal: e.g. from one PAN to the next Xavi: clarifying: fragmentation header right after MAC? Pascal: yes Pascal: without order, you cannot do IP-in-IP-in-IP Pascal: discussion is about the order of the headers, proposal: 1st reason: starting with RH is simpler as it is consumed 2nd reason: need a clear separator Pascal: proposal: reverse all the headers (keep logic as with IPHC and 6LoRH) IPHC and 6LoRH are the separators Pascal: RH3, then RPI, then 6LoRH. Simon feels it adds complexity the draft is redesigned to work on the compressed form if you don't want that you have to rewrite everything Thomas: Do we remove addresses of the routing header ? What are the arguments to put the header before ? Pascal: the main idea was to make easy to manipulate the header When its compressed its not meant to be read. DO people read in the zipped file? · [08.09] PlugTest [10min] Thomas: motes sent to the people dissector available Golden version available · Walk-through (delta) tests · related question about the 6lorh and 6top poipoi [07.??] AOB [1min] poipoi [08.??] Meeting ends _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch>
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
