Thanks Pascal, just integrated your suggestions to the latest version.
On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 12:00 AM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
pthub...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Very good Tengfei
>
> This addresses my comments.
>
> Note that the uppercase NOT is not a valid BCP14 term by itself. I’d
> reword to sa
Very good Tengfei
This addresses my comments.
Note that the uppercase NOT is not a valid BCP14 term by itself. I’d reword to
say that the distribution of traffic over multiple parents is a routing
decision that is out of scope for MSF...
Regards,
Pascal
Le 6 déc. 2019 à 12:01, Tengfei Chang
Hi Yatch,
The session is distinguished by the parent, there is no such case that two
MSF sessions have a 'common parent'.
MSF session to parent is 1 to 1 mapping relationship.
MSF session should be ends as long as a neighbor is un-selected as parent.
In the text, I agree we only details how MSF d
Hi Tengfei,
How do we distinguish multiple MSF sessions?
What if two MSF sessions have a same "selected parent", and then one of
them selects another selected parent? How many negotiated cells should
be taken over to the new selected parent?
These are not covered by the current text, and I th
I will add the following text at the intro part of MSF draft:
*MSF works closely with RPL, specifically the routing
parent defined in .
This specification only describes how MSF works with one routing parent,
which is phrased as "selected parent".The activity o
Hello Yatch
> Le 29 nov. 2019 à 22:48, Yasuyuki Tanaka a écrit :
>
> Thank you, Pascal for your comment.
>
>> On 11/29/2019 9:34 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>> RPL underneath is designed to operate with multiple parents, and for a good
>> reason.
>
> I understand that point.
>
>
Thank you, Pascal for your comment.
On 11/29/2019 9:34 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
RPL underneath is designed to operate with multiple parents, and for a good
reason.
I understand that point.
My point is, rephrasing the word alone couldn't be enough.
Bandwidth allocation doesn’t c
Would it be then a neighbour instead of a parent? (Assuming the neighbour
has joined the network)
Regards,
Diego
El vie., 29 de noviembre de 2019 17:34, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
pthub...@cisco.com> escribió:
> Spot on Yatch
>
> MSF manages the bandwidth over one L2 hop based on th
Spot on Yatch
MSF manages the bandwidth over one L2 hop based on the packets that L3 places
on that hop.
Bandwidth allocation doesn’t care what traffic that is or it’s direction. It
cares about the amount of traffic that needs to circulate over the hop.
The sense of direction came from the de
Hi Pascal,
pascal> My problem is that there’s only one preferred parent, but a
pascal> node may use several parents for data traffic. This is why we
pascal> build dodags in the first place.
pascal>
pascal> I believe that the node may allocate cells with all of those
pascal> “selected parents” if
Please do not call him preferred parent that’s something specific in RPL, the
best parent for forwarding up the dodag.
Why not just say “the parent “ explaining that the 6P protocol can be used in
parallel with multiple parents?
Regards,
Pascal
Le 29 nov. 2019 à 16:19, Tengfei Chang a écrit
Well my text was a proposal for rephrasing :)
Regards,
Pascal
Le 29 nov. 2019 à 16:19, Tengfei Chang a écrit :
Hi Pascal,
For the preferred parent issue:
When running MSF, the node is deal with one parent at a time out of the parent
set, which we called preferred parent.
It doesn't mean
Hi Pascal,
For the preferred parent issue:
When running MSF, the node is deal with one parent at a time out of the
parent set, which we called preferred parent.
It doesn't mean there is only one parent for each nodes.
The node may change its preferred parent to other parent, which responded
in th
Hello Tengfei
Please see below
Le 27 nov. 2019 à 21:44, Tengfei Chang a écrit :
Thanks a lot for the reviewing, I responded inline:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 6:42 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
mailto:pthub...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Dear all
Please find some comments below:
Please migrate to
Thanks a lot for the reviewing, I responded inline:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 6:42 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
pthub...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Dear all
>
>
>
> Please find some comments below:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please migrate to XML2RFC v3. This will save time in the future.
>
TC: got it! Will u
Dear all
Please find some comments below:
Please migrate to XML2RFC v3. This will save time in the future.
However, an implementor MAY implement MSF without implementing
Minimal 6TiSCH Configuration.
This is not helpful without explanations. What is the tradeoff? How does the
net
16 matches
Mail list logo
