Dear authors, I'm working in 6TiSCH WG. I believe many of the use cases described in draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-use-cases-02 will employ TSCH of IEEE802.15.4, and therefore 6top sublayer defined by 6TiSCH WG. Thus, IMHO, it is necessary to take not only the management requirements from those use cases, but also the management functionality of these protocols into consideration. Basically, there are two management modes in 6TiSCH networks, i.e. centralized, decentralized. Under decentralized mode, neighbor nodes need to exchange management data, such as the neighbor’s schedules, specifying which timeslots and which channels have be used, so as to allocate new communication resource collaboratively.
According to my understanding, the current management architecture/system (section 3.1) will support centralized management, hierarchical management, and distributed management (i.e multi local managers), but does not support this kind of peer-to-peer management, which also results in that “Security and Access Control” does not cover the peer-to-peer management. If it is true, I would suggest to add the peer-to-peer management into management architecture/system, and also consider it in other related sections. What do you think? Typo in draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-01 P14. “Constrained devices often implement a combination of one of FL0-FL2 with one of ML0-ML1.” Should “FL0-FL2” be “CL0-CL2”? Thanks Qin
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
