Wiki
Clone wikimeetings / 130405_webex
Minutes Webex 05 April 2013, 6TSCH group
Note: timestamps in PDT.
Present (alphabetically)
- Alfredo Grieco
- Dominique Barthel
- Maria Rita Palattella
- Pascal Thubert
- Qin Wang
- Ted Lemon
- Thomas Watteyne
- Tina Tsou
- Tom Phinney
- Xavi Vilajosana
Agenda
- 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]
Minutes
- [08.04] meeting starts
- Yoshihiro could not make it to the call, but sends the following update by
e-mail (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tsch/current/msg00422.html)
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: https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-ohba-6tsch-security/src
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 (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tsch/current/msg00326.html).
- [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 no-goal
- [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 finalize.
- 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
Updated