Subject: [6tisch] WGLC on draft-ietf-6tisch-msf-09

From: Tengfei Chang <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 18:28:26 +0100

Hi All,

As you may notice that the  draft-ietf-6tisch-msf-09  is just published.
We believe it resolved the comments mostly from Yatch and Pascal's review.
(Thanks a lot for those comments again!)

Yatch, Pascal, could you confirm they does resolve the issues?
Also anyone else is more than welcome to review and put comments!

Regards,
Tengfei

-- 
——————————————————————————————————————

Dr. Tengfei, Chang
Postdoctoral Research Engineer, Inria

www.tchang.org/
——————————————————————————————————————

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 19:29:14 +0000

My issues seem resolved Tengfei

I’ll make a pass tomorrow and if / when I get all the authors to answer me on the IPR I’ll make the publication request.

Regards,

Pascal

Le 12 déc. 2019 à 18:29, Tengfei Chang <[email-masked]> a écrit :

Hi All,

As you may notice that the  draft-ietf-6tisch-msf-09  is just published.
We believe it resolved the comments mostly from Yatch and Pascal's review. (Thanks a lot for those comments again!)

Regards,
Tengfei

Dr. Tengfei, Chang

www.tchang.org/<http://www.tchang.org/>
——————————————————————————————————————
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch

---

From: Yasuyuki Tanaka <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:01:04 -1000

Hi Tengfei,

Thank you for the updates. The new version addresses my comments. Here 
are a couple of trivial comments:

> (Section 5.1)
>    The node MUST maintain the following counters for the selected parent
>    on both negotiated Tx and Rx cells:

To my understanding, we have separate pairs of NumCellsElapsed and 
NumCellsUsed for the negotiated TX cell and the negotiated RX cell. It 
would be better to modify the sentence a little bit like:

--> "The node MUST maintain the following counters for each of the 
negotiated Tx cells, and the negotiated RX cells, that are scheduled 
with the selected parent."

> (Section 5.3)
>    2.  For example, when MAX_NUMTX is set to 256, from NumTx=255 and

--> "..., when MAX_NUMTX is set to 255, ..."

Best,
Yatch

---

From: Tengfei Chang <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:57:54 +0100

Thanks Yatch!  I will have those comments integrated into next version.

-------- Original message --------
From: Yasuyuki Tanaka <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 12:01 AM
To: Tengfei Chang <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [6tisch] WGLC on draft-ietf-6tisch-msf-09

Hi Tengfei,

Best,
Yatch

---

From: Tengfei Chang <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 12:06:24 +0100

Yatch,

For the whole sentence,

*"when NumTx reaches MAX_NUMTX, both NumTx and NumTxAck MUST be divided by
2*
*For example, when MAX_NUMTX is set to 256, from NumTx=255 and
NumTxAck=127, the counters become NumTx=128 and NumTxAck=64 if one frame is
sent to the parent with an Acknowledgment received."*

In this case, MAX_NUMTX should be set to 256.

Even NumTx is recommended to use 1 byte later,  when comparing NumTx and
MAX_NUMTX, a casting can be applied and doesn't break 1 byte storage of
NumTx.

Tengfei

Dr. Tengfei, Chang

www.tchang.org/

---

From: Yasuyuki Tanaka <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 06:13:30 -1000

Hi Tengfei,

If NumTX is one-byte long, which is recommended, it won't reach 256 
(MAX_NUMTX):
                                                               ...  When
    NumTx reaches MAX_NUMTX, both NumTx and NumTxAck MUST be divided by
    2.  For example, when MAX_NUMTX is set to 256, from NumTx=255 and
    NumTxAck=127, the counters become NumTx=128 and NumTxAck=64 if one
    frame is sent to the parent with an Acknowledgment received.

It would be nicer to avoid a potential coding error taking the text 
literally, checking if a 8-bit unsigned integer variable is equal to 
256, even although a smart compiler may give a warning or end with an error.

With MAX_NUMTX of 255, the resulting NumTx by division is then 127, by 
the way :-)

 > Even NumTx is recommended to use 1 byte later,  when comparing NumTx
 > and MAX_NUMTX, a casting can be applied and doesn't break 1 byte
 > torage of NumTx.

Yes, this is one of ways of implementation.

Thank you!
Yatch

On 12/13/2019 1:06 AM, Tengfei Chang wrote:
> /"when NumTx reaches MAX_NUMTX, both NumTx and NumTxAck MUST be divided 
> by 2/
> /For example, when MAX_NUMTX is set to 256, from NumTx=255 and 
> NumTxAck=127, the counters become NumTx=128 and NumTxAck=64 if one frame 
> is sent to the parent with an Acknowledgment received."/
> 
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 9:57 AM Tengfei Chang <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     From: Yasuyuki Tanaka <[email-masked]
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>     To: Tengfei Chang <[email-masked]
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>     Cc: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>,
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> www.tchang.org/ <http://www.tchang.org/>