Hi Christian,
> On 10 Sep 2022, at 12:30, Christian Amsüss wrote:
>
> * Do RFCs 9030/9031 allow that a device uses an explicit frame counter,
> which it increments in its own pace?
As mentioned, we’ve made every attempt to make RFC 9031 applicable to non-TSCH
use cases, as well. Construction
Michael Richardson writes:
> > * Do RFCs 9030/9031 allow that a device uses an explicit frame counter,
> > which it increments in its own pace?
>
> They don't say anything about it, I think.
> It's an IEEE/802.15.4 issue.
>
> 6tisch specifies TSCH mode, which includes the ASN. (To be
Christian Amsüss wrote:
> So before going on with questions about "how would any of this be
> signaled", my question is:
> * Do RFCs 9030/9031 allow that a device uses an explicit frame counter,
> which it increments in its own pace?
They don't say anything about it, I think.
Hello Mališa,
(reviving the old thread because interest as sparked anew at the RIOT
summit, and Michael helped me see some alternatives)
my previous mails in this thread were focused around syncing time in
some different way. Maybe this is all not necessary -- as long as the
nodes themselves
> On 20 Sep 2021, at 12:54, Christian Amsüss wrote:
> I originally thought I'd just take a K1 and K2 and the existing key
> usage table, but these are actually 6TiSCH specific. It'd be quite a
> waste to repeat the 14 modes to say the same about any other MAC
> (especially as using the K1/K2
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 12:15:27PM +0200, Mališa Vučinić wrote:
> As you could probably see from RFC9031, we did make an attempt to
> separate TSCH-specific from generally-applicable text,
yes, thanks for that -- if that were not done, the endeavour would be a
lot harder.
> The use cases you
Hi Christian,
As you could probably see from RFC9031, we did make an attempt to separate
TSCH-specific from generally-applicable text, but we indeed never instantiated
it for non-TSCH setups and additional parameters would need to be registered
and described. I do concur that the biggest
Hello Michael,
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 03:48:44PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> > have the discussions in the development of CoJP ever sidetracked to its
> > applicability for non-TSCH setups?
>
> not really.
thanks, that's good to know too.
> I think that the CoJP worked very very hard
Christian Amsüss wrote:
> have the discussions in the development of CoJP ever sidetracked to its
> applicability for non-TSCH setups?
not really.
> Parameters registry could suffice to make CoJP usable for DSME, NBE or
> BE (CAP / CSMA/CA) modes.
I think that the CoJP worked
Hello 6TiSCH group,
have the discussions in the development of CoJP ever sidetracked to its
applicability for non-TSCH setups?
Sure, there would be differences: The joined devices would need to keep
track of time in some way on their own (possibly less precise than for
ASNs; a confident upper
10 matches
Mail list logo
