Hi Qin, There are quite a few situations where is would be beneficial to just send a directional CLEAR request with cellOption. For example, if I want to delete lets say all transmit slots from A to B, DELETE will require the packet to include all the cell list allocated between the pair so it might be cumbersome. Also, If I am in the middle of a cell allocation transaction and decided to CLEAR my TX cells to my current next hop and move on, I do not exactly know how many cells have been allocated and what they are.
Does that make sense ? Regards, Sedat On 21 Jan 2017 12:19 am, "Qin Wang" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Sedat, > > I think CLEAR is usually used when inconsistency in schedules of a pair of > nodes is detected. In your case, DELETE, instead of CLEAR, can be used. In > addition, DELETE already has CellOption field. Make sense? > > Thanks > Qin > > > On Friday, January 20, 2017 11:22 AM, Sedat Gormus <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Dear All, > > We think it might be a good idea to have a cell option field in the 6P > clear command. > In some cases, we might want to delete only the transmit/receive slots to > our neighbor and keep the receive/transmit slots to that neighbor. > > One example can be such that when a child node in a RPL network changes > its parent, it will need to delete its transmit cells to its parent. But, > it might want to keep its receive cells since there might be an ongoing > communication happening to another part of the network in the opposite > direction which might be negatively affected due to this change ( example > can be a previously allocated track). > > Any comments and suggestions are welcome. > > > Kind Regards, > > Sedat > > _______________________________________________ > 6tisch mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch > > >
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
