Re: [6tisch] new command for 6P

2017-07-20 Thread Xavi Vilajosana Guillen 
Hi Michael,

the SFID is part of the 6P IE header so it is checked at both sides during
a transaction.
There can be multiple SFs running on a node (at the same time). (e.g one
per slotframe with a different objective), hence the SFID is used to
identify what SF originated the command.

regards,
X


2017-07-20 23:52 GMT+02:00 Michael Richardson :

>
> Xavi> information between the SF of the communicating nodes. The
> command
> Xavi> can be named SIGNAL and 6P will not define the content but only
> the
> Xavi> operation and encapsulation. The content will be defined by the
> Xavi> different SFs as an IE.
>
> Xavi> I think that a message like this brings flexibility to SFs to
> Xavi> implement configuration operations.
>
> I believe that I'm ignorant of how an SFx gets chosen for an LLN.
> Can multiple co-exist in different parts of the LLN?
> (I don't think so)
> Can the chosen SFx change over time?
>
> I ask because it seems like at least the content must include the SFx
> type so that there is no confusion of SFx's IE with SFy's IE.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 6tisch mailing list
> 6tisch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>
>


-- 
Dr. Xavier Vilajosana
Wireless Networks Lab

*Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3)Professor*
(+34) 646 633 681
xvilajos...@uoc.edu 
http://xvilajosana.org
http://wine.rdi.uoc.edu
Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia
Av Carl Friedrich Gauss 5, B3 Building
08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona). Catalonia. Spain
[image: Universitat Oberta de Catalunya]
­
___
6tisch mailing list
6tisch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch

Re: [6tisch] new command for 6P

2017-07-20 Thread Michael Richardson 

Xavi> information between the SF of the communicating nodes. The command
Xavi> can be named SIGNAL and 6P will not define the content but only the
Xavi> operation and encapsulation. The content will be defined by the
Xavi> different SFs as an IE.

Xavi> I think that a message like this brings flexibility to SFs to
Xavi> implement configuration operations.

I believe that I'm ignorant of how an SFx gets chosen for an LLN.
Can multiple co-exist in different parts of the LLN?
(I don't think so)
Can the chosen SFx change over time?

I ask because it seems like at least the content must include the SFx
type so that there is no confusion of SFx's IE with SFy's IE.

--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-





signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
6tisch mailing list
6tisch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch

Re: [6tisch] new command for 6P

2017-07-20 Thread Yasuyuki Tanaka 

Xavi,

Thank you for the example!

xavi> do you think makes sense?
Yes, I do :-)

Best,
Yatch


On 2017/07/20 5:19, Xavi Vilajosana Guillen wrote:

Hi Yatch,

here an example,

assume we have a fancy SF (named SFz) that requires to configure certain 
timeouts in a certain manner. Consider that this configuration cannot be 
deployed statically or pre-shared as it may depend on the app 
requirements, node rank or can be varying in time.


When a node in that network starts, joins through minimal and 
minimal-security and the SFz needs to start allocating cells, before 
however, it needs to configure the timeouts to meet the application 
requirements in that node.


Using the SIGNAL command with an IE that is defined by the SFz document, 
two nodes will be able to install the configuration.


In detail, node A is time source of Node B. Assume Node B joins and the 
SFz sends a SIGNAL command to Node A with the timeout configuration for 
the link. Node B verifies the content of the received SFz IE in the 
SIGNAL command and sends back a Response confirming the configuration. 
If all worked both nodes install the configuration.


do you think makes sense?
regards,
Xavi


2017-07-19 22:30 GMT+02:00 Yasuyuki Tanaka >:


Xavi,

That sounds interesting.

Could you share any example what kind of configuration will be
conveyed in a Signal Request and/or Response?

Best,
Yatch

On 2017/07/19 19:22, Xavi Vilajosana Guillen wrote:

Dear all,

I would like to propose a new command to be used to the 6P
Protocol. The command may be used to configure SF or exchange
information between the SF of the communicating nodes. The
command can be named SIGNAL and 6P will not define the content
but only the operation and encapsulation. The content will be
defined by the different SFs as an IE.

I think that a message like this brings flexibility to SFs to
implement configuration operations.

what do you think?
regards,
Xavi

-- 
Dr. Xavier Vilajosana

Wireless Networks Lab
/Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3)
Professor/
(+34) 646 633 681 
xvilajos...@uoc.edu 
>
http://xvilajosana.org
http://wine.rdi.uoc.edu
Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia
Av Carl Friedrich Gauss 5, B3 Building
08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona). Catalonia. Spain

Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
­





--
Dr. Xavier Vilajosana
Wireless Networks Lab
/Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3)
Professor/
(+34) 646 633 681
xvilajos...@uoc.edu 
http://xvilajosana.org
http://wine.rdi.uoc.edu
Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia
Av Carl Friedrich Gauss 5, B3 Building
08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona). Catalonia. Spain

Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
­


___
6tisch mailing list
6tisch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch

Re: [6tisch] new command for 6P

2017-07-19 Thread Fabrice Théoleyre 
That sounds great to me, and it is sufficiently flexible to be useful in many 
situations.

Best regards,
Fabrice


> Le 20 juil. 2017 à 05:19, Xavi Vilajosana Guillen  a 
> écrit :
> 
> Hi Yatch,
> 
> here an example,
> 
> assume we have a fancy SF (named SFz) that requires to configure certain 
> timeouts in a certain manner. Consider that this configuration cannot be 
> deployed statically or pre-shared as it may depend on the app requirements, 
> node rank or can be varying in time. 
> 
> When a node in that network starts, joins through minimal and 
> minimal-security and the SFz needs to start allocating cells, before however, 
> it needs to configure the timeouts to meet the application requirements in 
> that node.  
> 
> Using the SIGNAL command with an IE that is defined by the SFz document, two 
> nodes will be able to install the configuration.
> 
> In detail, node A is time source of Node B. Assume Node B joins and the SFz 
> sends a SIGNAL command to Node A with the timeout configuration for the link. 
> Node B verifies the content of the received SFz IE in the SIGNAL command and 
> sends back a Response confirming the configuration. If all worked both nodes 
> install the configuration.
> 
> do you think makes sense?
> regards,
> Xavi 
> 
> 
> 2017-07-19 22:30 GMT+02:00 Yasuyuki Tanaka  >:
> Xavi,
> 
> That sounds interesting.
> 
> Could you share any example what kind of configuration will be conveyed in a 
> Signal Request and/or Response?
> 
> Best,
> Yatch
> 
> On 2017/07/19 19:22, Xavi Vilajosana Guillen wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> I would like to propose a new command to be used to the 6P Protocol. The 
> command may be used to configure SF or exchange information between the SF of 
> the communicating nodes. The command can be named SIGNAL and 6P will not 
> define the content but only the operation and encapsulation. The content will 
> be defined by the different SFs as an IE.
> 
> I think that a message like this brings flexibility to SFs to implement 
> configuration operations.
> 
> what do you think?
> regards,
> Xavi
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Xavier Vilajosana
> Wireless Networks Lab
> /Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3)
> Professor/
> (+34) 646 633 681 
> xvilajos...@uoc.edu   >
> http://xvilajosana.org 
> http://wine.rdi.uoc.edu 
> Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia
> Av Carl Friedrich Gauss 5, B3 Building
> 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona). Catalonia. Spain
> 
> Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Xavier Vilajosana
> Wireless Networks Lab
> Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3)
> Professor
> (+34) 646 633 681
> xvilajos...@uoc.edu 
> http://xvilajosana.org 
> http://wine.rdi.uoc.edu 
> Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia 
> Av Carl Friedrich Gauss 5, B3 Building
> 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona). Catalonia. Spain
>   
> ___
> 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

Re: [6tisch] new command for 6P

2017-07-19 Thread Lijo Thomas 
Seems to be useful one , Xavi..

 

Thanks & Regards,

Lijo Thomas 

 

From: 6tisch [mailto:6tisch-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Xavi Vilajosana 
Guillen
Sent: 19 July 2017 22:53
To: tisch
Subject: [6tisch] new command for 6P

 

Dear all,

 

I would like to propose a new command to be used to the 6P Protocol. The 
command may be used to configure SF or exchange information between the SF of 
the communicating nodes. The command can be named SIGNAL and 6P will not define 
the content but only the operation and encapsulation. The content will be 
defined by the different SFs as an IE. 

 

I think that a message like this brings flexibility to SFs to implement 
configuration operations.

 

what do you think?

regards,

Xavi

 

-- 


Dr. Xavier Vilajosana
Wireless Networks Lab
Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3)
Professor
(+34) 646 633 681
xvilajosana  @uoc.edu
http://xvilajosana.org
http://wine.rdi.uoc.edu


Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia 
Av Carl Friedrich Gauss 5, B3 Building
08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona). Catalonia. Spain

  

­


---
[ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA & Twitter: @cdacindia ]

This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email
is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken.
---

___
6tisch mailing list
6tisch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch

Re: [6tisch] new command for 6P

2017-07-19 Thread Xavi Vilajosana Guillen 
Hi Yatch,

here an example,

assume we have a fancy SF (named SFz) that requires to configure certain
timeouts in a certain manner. Consider that this configuration cannot be
deployed statically or pre-shared as it may depend on the app requirements,
node rank or can be varying in time.

When a node in that network starts, joins through minimal and
minimal-security and the SFz needs to start allocating cells, before
however, it needs to configure the timeouts to meet the application
requirements in that node.

Using the SIGNAL command with an IE that is defined by the SFz document,
two nodes will be able to install the configuration.

In detail, node A is time source of Node B. Assume Node B joins and the SFz
sends a SIGNAL command to Node A with the timeout configuration for the
link. Node B verifies the content of the received SFz IE in the SIGNAL
command and sends back a Response confirming the configuration. If all
worked both nodes install the configuration.

do you think makes sense?
regards,
Xavi


2017-07-19 22:30 GMT+02:00 Yasuyuki Tanaka :

> Xavi,
>
> That sounds interesting.
>
> Could you share any example what kind of configuration will be conveyed in
> a Signal Request and/or Response?
>
> Best,
> Yatch
>
> On 2017/07/19 19:22, Xavi Vilajosana Guillen wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I would like to propose a new command to be used to the 6P Protocol. The
>> command may be used to configure SF or exchange information between the SF
>> of the communicating nodes. The command can be named SIGNAL and 6P will not
>> define the content but only the operation and encapsulation. The content
>> will be defined by the different SFs as an IE.
>>
>> I think that a message like this brings flexibility to SFs to implement
>> configuration operations.
>>
>> what do you think?
>> regards,
>> Xavi
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Xavier Vilajosana
>> Wireless Networks Lab
>> /Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3)
>> Professor/
>> (+34) 646 633 681
>> xvilajos...@uoc.edu 
>> http://xvilajosana.org
>> http://wine.rdi.uoc.edu
>> Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia
>> Av Carl Friedrich Gauss 5, B3 Building
>> 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona). Catalonia. Spain
>>
>> Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
>> ­
>>
>
>


-- 
Dr. Xavier Vilajosana
Wireless Networks Lab

*Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3)Professor*
(+34) 646 633 681
xvilajos...@uoc.edu 
http://xvilajosana.org
http://wine.rdi.uoc.edu
Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia
Av Carl Friedrich Gauss 5, B3 Building
08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona). Catalonia. Spain
[image: Universitat Oberta de Catalunya]
­
___
6tisch mailing list
6tisch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch

Re: [6tisch] new command for 6P

2017-07-19 Thread Yasuyuki Tanaka 

Xavi,

That sounds interesting.

Could you share any example what kind of configuration will be conveyed 
in a Signal Request and/or Response?


Best,
Yatch

On 2017/07/19 19:22, Xavi Vilajosana Guillen wrote:

Dear all,

I would like to propose a new command to be used to the 6P Protocol. The 
command may be used to configure SF or exchange information between the 
SF of the communicating nodes. The command can be named SIGNAL and 6P 
will not define the content but only the operation and encapsulation. 
The content will be defined by the different SFs as an IE.


I think that a message like this brings flexibility to SFs to implement 
configuration operations.


what do you think?
regards,
Xavi

--
Dr. Xavier Vilajosana
Wireless Networks Lab
/Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3)
Professor/
(+34) 646 633 681
xvilajos...@uoc.edu 
http://xvilajosana.org
http://wine.rdi.uoc.edu
Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia
Av Carl Friedrich Gauss 5, B3 Building
08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona). Catalonia. Spain

Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
­


___
6tisch mailing list
6tisch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch

Re: [6tisch] new command for 6P

2017-07-19 Thread Tengfei Chang 
I like the idea!

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
pthub...@cisco.com> wrote:

> Makes sense to me J
>
>
>
> *From:* 6tisch [mailto:6tisch-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Xavi
> Vilajosana Guillen
> *Sent:* mercredi 19 juillet 2017 19:23
> *To:* tisch <6tisch@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* [6tisch] new command for 6P
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> I would like to propose a new command to be used to the 6P Protocol. The
> command may be used to configure SF or exchange information between the SF
> of the communicating nodes. The command can be named SIGNAL and 6P will not
> define the content but only the operation and encapsulation. The content
> will be defined by the different SFs as an IE.
>
>
>
> I think that a message like this brings flexibility to SFs to implement
> configuration operations.
>
>
>
> what do you think?
>
> regards,
>
> Xavi
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Dr. Xavier Vilajosana*
> Wireless Networks Lab
>
> *Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3) Professor*
> (+34) 646 633 681 <+34%20646%2063%2036%2081>
> xvilajos...@uoc.edu 
> http://xvilajosana.org
> http://wine.rdi.uoc.edu
>
> Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia
> Av Carl Friedrich Gauss 5, B3 Building
> 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona). Catalonia. Spain
>
> [image: Universitat Oberta de Catalunya]
>
> ­
>
> ___
> 6tisch mailing list
> 6tisch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>
>


-- 
Chang Tengfei,
Pre-Postdoctoral Research Engineer, Inria
___
6tisch mailing list
6tisch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch

Re: [6tisch] new command for 6P

2017-07-19 Thread Pascal Thubert (pthubert) 
Makes sense to me ☺

From: 6tisch [mailto:6tisch-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Xavi Vilajosana 
Guillen
Sent: mercredi 19 juillet 2017 19:23
To: tisch <6tisch@ietf.org>
Subject: [6tisch] new command for 6P

Dear all,

I would like to propose a new command to be used to the 6P Protocol. The 
command may be used to configure SF or exchange information between the SF of 
the communicating nodes. The command can be named SIGNAL and 6P will not define 
the content but only the operation and encapsulation. The content will be 
defined by the different SFs as an IE.

I think that a message like this brings flexibility to SFs to implement 
configuration operations.

what do you think?
regards,
Xavi

--
Dr. Xavier Vilajosana
Wireless Networks Lab
Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3)
Professor
(+34) 646 633 681
xvilajos...@uoc.edu
http://xvilajosana.org
http://wine.rdi.uoc.edu

Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia
Av Carl Friedrich Gauss 5, B3 Building
08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona). Catalonia. Spain

[Universitat Oberta de Catalunya]  
[https://ferranadelantado.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/wine_logo_small2-e1453363995864.png?w=330&h=123]
­
___
6tisch mailing list
6tisch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch