Hi Remy,
Regarding to your question on 4.2.6. 6P CellOptions, the first column is the
cell's type from node A's point of view, and the second column is the cell's
type from node B's point of view. Does it make sense?
ThanksQin
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 8:09 AM, Remy Leone <[email protected]>
wrote:
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 Transaction4.1.2. 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 RXTX=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
upstreamhttps://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
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
