Hi Jonathan,
Thank you very much for your review. Please see inline.
Qin
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 11:21 AM, Jonathan Muñoz
<jonathan.mu...@inria.fr> 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?
->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?
------------------------------ ------------------------------
-------------------------
--
Jonathan MuñozPhD student at Gridbee Communications & INRIA Paris+33 (0) 6 59
05 93 83_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
6tisch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
6tisch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
