Hello, I got a bunch of remarks about the 6P draft https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol-03
*4.1.1. 2-step 6top Transaction* *4.1.2. 3-step 6top Transaction* Maybe it would be nice to add at the end of the workflow that if the transaction was successful, the schedule generation is incremented to allow inconsistencies detection. *4.2.4. 6P Command Identifiers* CMD_CLEAR: Maybe it would be a good idea to specify whether it soft, hard or both cells that are concerned. *4.2.6. 6P CellOptions* In Figure 11, is there is mix-up between line 2 & 3 TX=1, *RX=0*, S=0 | select the cells scheduled with A and marked as *RX* *TX=0*, RX=1, S=0 | select the cells scheduled with A and marked as *TX* and the line 6 & 7? *TX=1*, RX=0, S=1 | select the cells scheduled with A and marked as *RX* and SHARED TX=0, *RX=1*, S=1 | select the cells scheduled with A and marked as *TX* and SHARED TX and RX don't seem to match. Also, I think it would be useful to define what SHARED means, I fail to find the definition in this draft. *4.3.6. Clearing the Schedule* I think it would be a good idea to specify whether it's hard cells or soft cells (or both) that are concerned by this. *6. Implementation Status* Support for 6P in Wireshark was merged upstream https://github.com/wireshark/wireshark/commit/8b0e66f22c059533643195ba7571cafe9f006f58 Therefore there is a need to update the text concerning the Wireshark dissector. Best regards Rémy
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
