Hello Qin,

Thanks for your reply. Please see inline,

Regards,
JM

2017-06-07 22:46 GMT+02:00 Qin Wang <[email protected]>:

> Hi Jonathan,
>
> Sorry, in previous email I missed your comment about section 4.3.5.
>
> Your question is: if the SF manages several slotframes, when retrieving
> the LIST, how to differentiate them, since they appear as a tuple
> (slotOffset,channelOffset). My question is if it is worthy to make the
> differentiation when receiving all the cells. Or this will be handled by
> the SF? IMO an example will be good.
>
> According to my understanding, SF0 uses Metadate to express slotframe ID,
> see the description of Metadata in 6P draft. Thus, it is SF0 who handles
> this. For example, SF0 can define in this way: if specific slotframe ID in
> Metadata, then the Cells in the CellList of Response belong the specific
> slotframe; if setting some value like FF in Metadata to say all of
> slotframes, then the CellList of Response will include all of cells
> scheduled between the two neighbors. But, this should be defined and
> explained in SF0 draft. What do you think?
>


> [JM]: so this is left for the SFs to manage what information to ask for.
> Good.
>


>
> Thanks
> Qin
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 3:54 PM, Qin Wang <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> Thank you very much for your review. Please see inline.
>
> Qin
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 11:21 AM, Jonathan Muñoz <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Dear 6P authors, W.G,
>
> I read the 6top Protocol draft - v05, and I find it very clear. I have
> some questions and few comments. Hopefully you'll find them useful.
>
> Best,
>
> Jonathan Munoz
>
> ------------------------------ ------------------------------
> -------------------------
> ->Section 4.1: "If no dedicated cells are scheduled between nodes A and B,
> shared
>    cells MAY be used. -> Is there another option? if not, shouldn't say
> MUST?
> [Qin]: I think there is another option, i.e. do nothing if no dedicated
> cells are scheduled between node A and node B. What do you think?
>
[JM]: I think that if this is the description of the 6P Transactions, they
> either happen in a dedicated cell or a shared cell. IMO, doing nothing is
> always an option but it won't then classify as a 6P Transaction.
>

>
> ->Section 4.3.2:
>      "  All cells in the CellList MUST already be scheduled between the
> two nodes and must match the CellOptions field. If node A puts cells in its
> CellList that are not already scheduled between the two nodes and match the
> CellOptions field, node B replies with a RESET return code"
>
>    Section 4.3.3:
>      "Upon receiving the request, node B's SF verifies that all the cells
> in the Relocation CellList are indeed scheduled with node A, and are
> associate the options specified in the CellOptions field. If that check
> fails, node B MUST send a 6P Response to node A with return code
> CELLLIST_ERR."
>
> Both errors give a different response but it looks to me that they have
> the same source -mismatch in their schedule-. Is it ok?
>
> [Qin] You are right. We change error code in 4.3.2 to CELLLIST_ERR.
>
> ->Section 4.3.5:
>      if the SF manages several slotframes, when retrieving the LIST, how
> to differentiate them, since they appear as a tuple
> (slotOffset,channelOffset). My question is if it is worthy to make the
> differentiation when receiving all the cells. Or this will be handled by
> the SF? IMO an example will be good.
>
> ->Figures: 17, -6P COUNT Response and Confirmation-
>                 19, -6P LIST Response and Confirmation-
>                 21, -6P CLEAR Response and Confirmation-
>
>     Will these transaction have a confirmation message? it seems to me
> they are a 2-step transactions, always.
>
> [Qin] accepted.
>
> -> Sequence Number: will it increase +1 despite the failure of the
> previous transaction?
>
> [Qin]: I think so. Is there any particular reason for not doing in this
> way?
>
> [JM]: perfect, thanks for clarifying.
> ------------------------------ ------------------------------
> -------------------------
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Muñoz
> PhD student at Gridbee Communications & INRIA Paris
> +33 (0) 6 59 05 93 83
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>
>
>


-- 
Jonathan Muñoz
PhD student at Gridbee Communications & INRIA Paris
+33 (0) 6 59 05 93 83 <+33%206%2059%2005%2093%2083>
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch

Reply via email to