Excellent!

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Prof. Diego Dujovne <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Thomas,
>               Thanks for the review, I hope to attend to the call.
> I am very happy that we can discuss these items, so we
> can provide a new version with the feedback before IETF97.
>               Regards,
>
>                                                Diego
>
> 2016-09-23 8:14 GMT-03:00 Xavi Vilajosana Guillen <[email protected]>:
>
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> thanks for your comments I confirm I will attend the meeting this
>> afternoon. I will go through your reviews carefully.
>>
>> thanks so much!
>> X
>>
>> 2016-09-23 11:44 GMT+02:00 Thomas Watteyne <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> In preparation of the 6TiSCH interim meeting later today, below is my
>>> review of draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-sf0-01. I'm reading the XML file
>>> directly at https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-sf0/s
>>> rc/master/draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-sf0-02.xml, to be most up-to-date.
>>>
>>> *@authors*, could you confirm you will attend the 6TiSCH interim
>>> meeting later today?
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>> *issue tracking*
>>>
>>> This is now a WG doc. Per the 6TiSCH best practice, this means issues
>>> should be tracked by https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6tisch/trac/report/1
>>>
>>> *@editor*, please:
>>> - report the open issue on the bitbucket issue tracker into the IETF
>>> 6TiSCH issue tracker
>>> - disable the bitbucket issue tracker
>>>
>>> *organization*
>>>
>>> The idea is that the definition of an SF follows the recommendations
>>> from https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-prot
>>> ocol-02#section-5, in particular answers all the requirements and
>>> follows the structure.
>>>
>>> *@editor*, please add an appendix at the draft to indicate whether you
>>> answer all requirements (checklist) and formatting. You can mark this
>>> appendix a temporary by putting the "[temporay]" keyword. One example is
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protoc
>>> ol-02#appendix-A.
>>>
>>> *implementation/.performance evaluation*
>>>
>>> The WG needs to know (1) who implemented this and (2) how good the
>>> proposed solution performes.
>>>
>>> *@editor*, follow the implementation section by a "Performance
>>> Evaluation" section in which you list the key results. The WG needs to know
>>> the limits of the SF: how does it scale with number of motes, network
>>> dynamics, etc.
>>>
>>> *figure*
>>>
>>> *@editor*, as discussed in IETF96 Berlin, Figure "The SF0 Allocation
>>> Policy" is not clear. Please comment on the changes you agreed to do.
>>>
>>> *general confusion about cells/bandwidth*
>>>
>>> I fail to understand the relationship between cells and bandwidth. You
>>> express bandwidth in kbps, but a cell carries one packet, and that packet
>>> can contain ~0-100 bytes of payload. Many small packets is very different
>>> from a few large packets from a scheduling point of view.
>>>
>>> I therefore STRONGLY suggest to think about number of packets, no kbps.
>>>
>>> *general questions about PDR*
>>>
>>> I'm not at all convinced about using PDR to calculate the number of
>>> cells, based on a number of kbps. It's unbelievably complex for no reason.
>>>
>>> Rather, I suggest to think only about number of cells used: if I'm using
>>> 90% (resp. add) of the outgoing cells to a particular neighbor over some
>>> period of time, I should probably add (resp. delete) some.
>>>
>>> *about timeout*
>>>
>>> The draft now says
>>>
>>> "The general timeout equals the equivalent time of the number of slots
>>> until the next scheduled cell."
>>>
>>> Next scheduled cell to whom? In RX or TX? What are retries?
>>>
>>> Similarly, "Node Behavior at Boot" states that the "timeout" is
>>> calculated as:
>>>
>>> timeout = (2^(macMaxBE+1)-2^macMinBE) * SM
>>>
>>> - what timeout is this exactly?
>>> - minimal Slotframe, SM: is that a duration, a number of slots?
>>> - what is the unit of timeout?
>>>
>>> *metadata*
>>>
>>> I don't understand the use of the metadata in Section "Meaning of
>>> Metadata Information".
>>>
>>> *PDR threshold*
>>>
>>> "Relocating Cells" now states:
>>>
>>> SF0 uses Packet Delivery Rate (PDR) statistics to monitor the currently
>>> allocated cells for cell re-allocation (by changing their slotOffset and/or
>>> channelOffset) when it finds out that the PDR of one or more softcells
>>> below 20% of the average PDR.
>>>
>>> The average PDR of what? Why 20%?
>>>
>>> *editorial suggestions*
>>>
>>> - the many acronyms (BEA, COBU, NIBR,NOB, AP, etc) add confusion more
>>> than clarity. THere appears to be a new term/acronym every 2 sentences! Can
>>> we not simply talk about "incoming", "outgoing" and "generated"? Not every
>>> word needs an acronym.
>>> - I don't understand what Whitelist and Blacklist mean in the "Rules for
>>> CellList" section.
>>> - "delete one or more cells" and "add one or more cells" is not precise
>>> enough. How many should be added/deleted?
>>> - the term bandwidth is confusing. Is it a number of packets per second?
>>> per frame? a number of cells? *@editor*, please add a definitions
>>> section, and consider changing the terminology.
>>> - isn't "NOB=NIBR-COBU", not "NOB=COBU+NIBR"
>>> - the draft starts very abruptly by referencing triggering events, BEA
>>> and allocation policy in the "Rules for Adding/Deleting Cells" Section. At
>>> that point of the draft, the reader has no idea what that is. *@editor*,
>>> please add an "Overview" section which contains a couple of paragraphs.
>>>
>>> *nits and typos*
>>>
>>> [use Ctrl+F]
>>>
>>> - "and determine" -> "and determines"
>>> - re-allocation-> relocation
>>> - dissappears -> disappears
>>> - 6P ALL Request -> 6P ADD Request?
>>>
>>> --
>>> _______________________________________
>>>
>>> Thomas Watteyne, PhD
>>> Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria
>>> Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
>>> Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
>>> Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH
>>>
>>> www.thomaswatteyne.com
>>> _______________________________________
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 6tisch mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Xavier Vilajosana Guillén­
>> Research Professor
>> Wireless Networks Research Group
>> Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3)
>> Universitat Oberta de Catalunya­
>>
>> +34 646 633 681| [email protected]­ | Skype­: xvilajosana
>> http://xvilajosana.org
>> http://wine.rdi.uoc.edu/
>>
>> Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia
>> Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss, 5. Edifici B3
>> 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona)
>>
>>
>>
>> ­
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 6tisch mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> DIEGO DUJOVNE
> Profesor Asociado
> Escuela de Informática y Telecomunicaciones
> Facultad de Ingeniería - Universidad Diego Portales - Chile
> www.ingenieria.udp.cl
> (56 2) 676 8125
>



-- 
_______________________________________

Thomas Watteyne, PhD
Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria
Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH

www.thomaswatteyne.com
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch

Reply via email to