Tero Kivinen wrote:
> Michael Richardson writes:
>> > Implementations MUST use different L2 keys when using different MIC
>> > lengths, as using same key with different MIC lengths might be
>> unsafe > (i.e., using same key for both MIC-32 and MIC-64). See IEEE
>> 802.15.4 >
Michael Richardson writes:
> > Implementations MUST use different L2 keys when using different MIC
> > lengths, as using same key with different MIC lengths might be unsafe
> > (i.e., using same key for both MIC-32 and MIC-64). See IEEE 802.15.4
> > Annex B.4.3 for more
Hello Tengfei:
When the schedule gets more loaded the chances will become bad. Xavi
demonstrated that a half loaded CDU matrix causes the allocation to pretty much
never converge.
I do not agree that the schedule will necessarily be lightly used. Note that
LBT is a mandatory practice in the
Hi Pascal,
Thanks for notification!
I just pushed the PDF version but don't know how to remove the previous
uploaded slides. Could you check that? Thanks!
Tengfei
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 4:51 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
pthub...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Dear all:
>
>
>
> On the side, please
Hi Pascal,
It is good for me to confirm it is about the hidden terminal collision
issue. Great!
For your first question that where those cells come from, it is not
mentioned in the MSF draft, but what I assumed is using the CDU matrix.
I understand what you are saying and agree the collision
Dear all:
On the side, please keep in mind that the chromebooks only play PDFs, and use
that form to upload your slides.
All the best,
Pascal
From: 6tisch <6tisch-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Sent: lundi 15 juillet 2019 07:22
To: lp-...@ietf.org; 6tisch@ietf.org
Hi Esteban,
Thanks for the comments, I will answer inline:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 3:47 PM Esteban Municio <
esteban.muni...@uantwerpen.be> wrote:
> Hi Tengfei,
>
> I like the new changes, especially the concept of autonomous cells by
> demand and always having by default 1 downlink negotiated
Hello Tengfei:
You start from a cell list from which a parent can select cells to talk with
its children. But where do those cells come from?
Is that all the CDU matrix? Or a chunk off it (see discussion in Archie)? Or
just a pseudo-random selection, possibly dependent on that parent’s MAC?
Hi Pascal,
For the synchronization, I agree. It should be listening for a
certain period of time and then choose which EB to use for synchronizing.
Will update in the next version.
For the rule of celllist:
- > Not the same problem. Think about this, where does the list of free
cells come
Hi Esteban,
> * Maybe out of the scope but, should not be defined here a housekeeping
> function that removes unused negotiated cells (TX or RX)? For example
> for cells that can't be removed with a 6P transaction (e.g. nodes are
> not in range any more).
It'd be nice to mention something there,
10 matches
Mail list logo
