Clone wiki

meetings / 130405_webex

Minutes Webex 05 April 2013, 6TSCH group

Note: timestamps in PDT.

Present (alphabetically)

  1. Alfredo Grieco
  2. Dominique Barthel
  3. Maria Rita Palattella
  4. Pascal Thubert
  5. Qin Wang
  6. Ted Lemon
  7. Thomas Watteyne
  8. Tina Tsou
  9. Tom Phinney
  10. Xavi Vilajosana


  • update work on PANA [Yoshihiro] [5min]
  • update work on NSIS [Xavi, John] [5min]
  • use cases and problem statement: [30min]
    • summary ML
    • discussion "Problem statement"
    • review remaining items from slide deck
  • list of achievable goals "what needs to be done that does not exist already?"
    • requirements document
    • architecture document
    • 6tus "foundation" layer
    • optimized multipath hard tracks
    • distributed multipath soft tracks
    • simple distributed routing
    • interoperation event
  • draft charter: next steps? [5min]


  • [08.04] meeting starts
  • Yoshihiro could not make it to the call, but sends the following update by
    e-mail (see

    Regarding "update work on PANA" part, 6 contributors have joined to
    develop a 6TSCH security architecture based on PANA. Once TOC is agreed,
    contributors will start working on detailed text.

    The latest draft being edited is available at:

    Any comments are appreciated.

  • [08.06] work on NSIS [Xavi]
    • Together with John, Xavi has written a document on the applicability of
      NSIS for 6TSCH networks.
    • Will share document on ML soon.
    • NSIS can be useable for soft reservation between nodes in the network.
    • We can create extension if needed.
    • Not clear whether can be used for PCE-to-node communication.
    • [Pascal] We need to discuss whether NSIS can really be used for PCE
      to mote communication.
    • [Pascal] Carsten Borrmann suggested in ML that NSIS is too
      complicated to be implemented in motes
    • [Qin] if we want to use NSIS also for PCE to mote, then motes need to
      implement NSIS in all cases.
    • [Xavi] If we go that route, yes.
    • [Thomas] This is a very first announcement of the work by Xavi and
      John. Let's wait for the document to appear of the ML and discuss on ML.
  • [08.10] Problem statement [Pascal]
    • Pascal presents slides [TODO Thomas: add link]
    • Optimized Multipath hard tracks
      • Optimized => PCE
      • Allocation may be handled by a tier
      • [Thomas] What's the meaning of IHM?
      • [Pascal] This is a typo. Equivalent to GUI.
      • [Pascal] Reducing the amount of copper wiring in a car
        reduces its weight, and has a real impact on mileage.
    • Distributed Routing, soft tracks
      • Reservation => RSVP or NSIS
      • [Pascal] We need to highlight a very clear use case for this.
      • [Thomas] Agreed that we need to identify use case. Yet let's
        not consider this of secondary importance.
    • Distributed Routing (best effort)
      • Distributed => RPL
      • [Qin] It's a bit unclear what this use case it.
      • [Thomas] We can consider this case for:
        • Absolute minimal set of things you need to do to interoperate
          (shared slots)
        • used when nodes are so constrained that can not implement
          any form of reservation
        • used as fallback when all rest goes wrong
        • used when bootstrapping network
    • Mobility (best effort)
      • Two cases: mobile cranes and mobile worker
      • [Pascal] Can we consider traffic in mobile worker case to be
        "best effort"?
      • [Dominique] Yes.
    • Dynamic slot allocation
      • Used for bursty traffic
      • [Thomas] A bit open-ended. Multiple solutions can be found.
        Maybe roll into "Distributed Routing (best effort)" case?
    • Backbone
      • renumbering not needed when nodes transition from one LLN to another
    • Large/long mesh
      • [Dominique] Clarification: large akin city-wide, long akin
        "linear" topology
      • [Tom] Does this not fall into backbone case?
      • [Thomas] Agreed. Asnwer for city-wide deployments could be
        architecture recommendation to use multiple island of 100s nodes
        interconnected by backbone.
      • [Pascal] Agreed, we don't need protocolar answer to this.
    • Coexistence with legacy
      • Agreed that sync various standards (ISA100.11a, WirelessHART) is
  • [08.57] draft charter [Thomas]
    • Wrote a 1.5p very first draft charter
    • Idea is to serve as a basis for discussion
    • With lots of work already done by group, will probably be painless to
    • Will post to mailing list to start discussion
    • We can cover this in next call.
  • [09.02] Next steps
    • [Pascal] Put draft charter in bitbucket?
    • [Thomas] Yes. But charter is a very short document. Maybe we need
      a (longer) requirements document?
    • [Pascal] Sounds like a plan.
  • [09.05] meeting ends