Hi Qin,
>> In Figure 11, is there is mix-up between line 2 & 3 ...
>> and the line 6 & 7?
>
> Oh, I didn't notice that!!
Oops, you're right... Thank you! :-)
draft> Figure 10: Format of the CellOptions field
draft>
draft> Note: assuming node A issues the 6P command to node B.
draft> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
draft> +-------------+-----------------------------------------------+
draft> | CellOptions | B's action when receiving a 6P message from A |
draft> | Value | ^^^^^^^^^^ |
draft> +-------------+-----------------------------------------------+
draft> |TX=0,RX=0,S=0| select all cells scheduled with A |
draft> +-------------+-----------------------------------------------+
draft> |TX=1,RX=0,S=0| select the cells scheduled with A |
draft> | | and marked as RX |
draft> +-------------+-----------------------------------------------+
Best,
Yatch
On 2017/02/02 16:38, Yasuyuki Tanaka wrote:
Hi Rémy,
From my understanding, CMD_CLEAR won't have any impact on hard cells since hard
cells are read-only for 6top.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol-03#section-3.1
draft> 3.1. Hard/Soft Cells
draft>
draft> 6top qualifies each cell in the schedule as either "hard" or "soft":
draft>
draft> o a soft cell can be read, added, deleted or updated by 6top.
draft> o a hard cell is read-only for 6top.
draft> In the context of this specification, all the cells used by 6top are
draft> soft cells.
In Figure 11, is there is mix-up between line 2 & 3 ...
and the line 6 & 7?
Oh, I didn't notice that!!
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol-03#section-4.2.6
(row-2 in Figure 11)
draft> +-------------+-----------------------------------------------+
draft> |TX=1,RX=0,S=0| select the cells scheduled with A |
draft> |^^ | and marked as RX |
draft> | | ^^ |
draft> +-------------+-----------------------------------------------+
Also, I think it would be useful to define what SHARED means, I fail to find
the definition in this draft.
I agree; we'd need some text explaining the meaning of each bit listed in
Figure 10. Actually, the idea come from Link Options defined in Section 7.4.4.3
in IEEE Std 802.15.4(-2015).
Best,
Yatch
On 2017/02/02 14:09, Remy Leone 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 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
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
