Pascal,
Acknowledge. Let's discuss tomorrow
on choice 2, as you mentioned.
Thank you.
Regards,
Diego
2016-03-04 8:06 GMT-03:00 Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]>:
> Hello Diego:
>
>
>
> You need a IANA section where you detail which registries you create and
> which you add to.
>
> Then you need to enumerate the entries that you need, as you do below.
>
>
>
> You may suggest values to help interop till you make RFC, but the IANA
> will have the final word and implementations may need to be updated.
>
>
>
> In this particular case, we have discussed where the IE space comes from
> but I have not seen a final conclusion on that. In particular (quoting
> Thomas in the attached mail) we have on the table “*Choice 2, the ID is
> allocated to IETF via IANA. There is a defined process to obtain a Payload
> Group ID (http://www.ieee802.org/15/ANA.html
> <http://www.ieee802.org/15/ANA.html>), it basically starts with a formal
> request from an IANA officer. There are only 8 addresses left before going
> onto extended addresses, so we really need to make sure that each of the 8
> addresses will be properly used.*”
>
>
>
> If we are sure we’ll need the ID regardless of this particular draft, then
> we may issue a short draft to request it from IANA. As Thomas indicated, we
> need a very solid justification. It would be good to discuss this at the
> interim next Friday to prepare for any request / question to the 6TiSHC SG
> or WG15 who are meeting in Macao the week after.
>
>
>
> CC’ing Brian in case I missed something?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
>
> *From:* 6tisch [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Prof.
> Diego Dujovne
> *Sent:* jeudi 3 mars 2016 17:54
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* [6tisch] 6P and Sf0 issue: IANA IDs
>
>
>
> Dear 6tisch chairs,
>
> I would like to know which are the steps
>
> to request IDs to IANA, since we need at least the following
>
> ones:
>
>
> IANA_IETF_IE_GROUP_ID
> IANA_6TOP_SUBIE_ID
> IANA_6TOP_6P_VERSION
> 6P command identifiers
> 6P Return Codes
> IANA_SFID_SF0
>
> Are they independent of the draft/RFC status? Do we have
>
> to wait until the drafts get into the standardization track?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Diego Dujovne
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> DIEGO DUJOVNE
> Académico Escuela de Ingeniería en Informática y Telecomunicaciones
> Facultad de Ingeniería UDP
> www.ingenieria.udp.cl
> (56 2) 676 8125
>
>
> ---------- Message transféré ----------
> From: Thomas Watteyne <[email protected]>
> To: "[email protected]" <
> [email protected]>
> Cc: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:05:42 +0000
> Subject: Re: [6tisch] IEEE 802.15 6T Interest Group responses to IETF
> 6tisch requests
> Pat,
> I suggest we discuss this at the meeting this Friday. I will start a
> thread on the ML. OK for me to copy-paste the following:
>
> *The best way to determine which of these alternatives to use is to define
> what is required of the IE and how is it used:*
>
> *Choice 1, the vendor specific ID is already defined in the standard and
> needs no further action from 6tisch. It uses the Payload IE Group ID = 0x2
> followed by 3 octets of the Vendor’s OUI. Two options here are to request
> an OUI from the IEEE RAC, or request a company ID from the IEEE RAC.
> Regardless, the vendor specific ID adds 3 octets to the IE, which is not a
> problem if the IE is seldom used, such as configuring the network.*
>
> *Choice 2, the ID is allocated to IETF via IANA. There is a defined
> process to obtain a Payload Group ID (http://www.ieee802.org/15/ANA.html
> <http://www.ieee802.org/15/ANA.html>), it basically starts with a formal
> request from an IANA officer. There are only 8 addresses left before going
> onto extended addresses, so we really need to make sure that each of the 8
> addresses will be properly used.*
>
> *Choice 3, the ESDU IE is meant to send a message to another node, it has
> no inherent formatting, the other node must already understand how to use
> the information.*
>
> *If the 6tisch group chooses choice 2, we’ll need a request from IANA.*
>
> Thomas
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:48 AM, [email protected] <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your reply Thomas;
>>
>> Firstly, as far as the formatting goes, it would be good for the group to
>> entertain any other format. If there are no other formats proposed, then
>> the recommended one is the de facto format. If another format is proposed
>> then the WG should agree on a method to decide.
>>
>> Secondly, for a unique Payload IE Group ID to be used by 6tisch, there
>> are at least three alternatives: 1) use the vendor specific ID stated in
>> the 802.15.4 standard, 2) request a Payload IE to be assigned to IETF via
>> IANA, and 3) use the Encapsulated Service Data Unit (ESDU) IE ID stated in
>> the 802.15.4 standard.
>>
>> The best way to determine which of these alternatives to use is to define
>> what is required of the IE and how is it used:
>>
>> Choice 1, the vendor specific ID is already defined in the standard and
>> needs no further action from 6tisch. It uses the Payload IE Group ID = 0x2
>> followed by 3 octets of the Vendor’s OUI. Two options here are to request
>> an OUI from the IEEE RAC, or request a company ID from the IEEE RAC.
>> Regardless, the vendor specific ID adds 3 octets to the IE, which is not a
>> problem if the IE is seldom used, such as configuring the network.
>>
>> Choice 2, the ID is allocated to IETF via IANA. There is a defined
>> process to obtain a Payload Group ID (http://www.ieee802.org/15/ANA.html),
>> it basically starts with a formal request from an IANA officer. The issue
>> I have with this choice is that we have only 8 addresses left before going
>> onto extended addresses, so we really need to make sure that each of the 8
>> addresses will be properly used.
>>
>> Choice 3, the ESDU IE is meant to send a message to another node, it has
>> no inherent formatting, the other node must already understand how to use
>> the information.
>>
>> If the 6tisch group chooses choice 2, we’ll need a request from IANA.
>>
>> Thanks, Pat
>>
>>
>> On 28, Jan2016, at 14:19, Thomas Watteyne <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Pat,
>>
>> I realize we never really discussed this, and we haven't given it the
>> attention is deserves in the WG. I don't know how this happened, as this is
>> obviously very important, and a great example of IEEE/IETF liaison. Thank
>> you BTW for the super detailed documents. Again, for some reason, I never
>> thanked you for that.
>>
>> I understand the recommendation you make in 6TiSCH_IE_information doc,
>> and agree in principle for the recommendations about the formatting.
>> So what's the next step? If I understand the document well, you are
>> asking me to send you another e-mail asking for a IETF Payliad IE ID?
>> I agree that a single IETF Payload IE is the right way to go, and we can
>> write up an IETF RFC which details how the sub-id space is managed by the
>> IETF, closely following you recommendations.
>> I also agree with the statement that it should be called something
>> different than IANA_6TOP_IE_GROUP_ID, obviously. This naming is mostly an
>> editorial nit, nothing more.
>>
>> So what's the next step?
>> - I send you another e-mail
>> - I start an I-D which detailed how the subID space is managed (you're
>> welcome to author/edit it)
>> - IEEE gives us a number
>> - we go have a beer together in Buenos Aires?
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: [email protected] <
>> [email protected]>
>> Date: Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:33 AM
>> Subject: [6tisch] IEEE 802.15 6T Interest Group responses to IETF 6tisch
>> requests
>> To: [email protected]
>> Cc: "Heile Bob Ph., D" <[email protected]>, Watteyne Thomas <
>> [email protected]>, Thubert Pascal <[email protected]>, Brian Haberman <
>> [email protected]>
>>
>>
>> This email is in response to Thomas Watteyne’s email dated 23 October
>> requesting the IEEE 802.15 6T interest group to make a recommendation on IE
>> format. It also addresses correct settings for the PAN ID compression bit
>> in response to the 6tisch minimal document.
>>
>> These documents have been reviewed for accuracy and the IE format
>> recommendation was approved by the 6T interest group.
>>
>> Please respond to me or the 6T reflector (
>> [email protected]) with any concerns or issues you may
>> have with these documents.
>>
>> Sincerely, Pat Kinney
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 6tisch mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________
>>
>> Thomas Watteyne, PhD
>> Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria
>> Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
>> Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
>> Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH
>>
>> www.thomaswatteyne.com
>> _______________________________________
>> <15-15-0939-02-0000-IETF_6tisch_IE_Information.docx>
>> <15-15-0911-01-0mag-Proper_PAN_ID_Field_Settings_for_802.15.4-2015.docx>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________
>
> Thomas Watteyne, PhD
> Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria
> Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
> Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
> Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH
>
> www.thomaswatteyne.com
> _______________________________________
>
>
--
DIEGO DUJOVNE
Académico Escuela de Ingeniería en Informática y Telecomunicaciones
Facultad de Ingeniería UDP
www.ingenieria.udp.cl
(56 2) 676 8125
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
