6top Protocol (6P)
draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol-02
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8480.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Qin Wang , Xavier Vilajosana | ||
| Last updated | 2016-07-25 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Telechat review
(of
-09)
by Brian Carpenter
Ready w/issues
IOTDIR Early review
(of
-09)
by Alexander Pelov
Ready w/issues
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 8480 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol-02
6TiSCH Q. Wang, Ed.
Internet-Draft Univ. of Sci. and Tech. Beijing
Intended status: Informational X. Vilajosana
Expires: January 26, 2017 Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
July 25, 2016
6top Protocol (6P)
draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol-02
Abstract
This document defines the 6top Protocol (6P), which enables
distributed scheduling in 6TiSCH networks. 6P allows neighbor nodes
in a 6TiSCH network to add/delete TSCH cells to one another. 6P is
part of the 6TiSCH Operation Sublayer (6top), the next higher layer
of the IEEE802.15.4 TSCH medium access control layer. The 6top
Scheduling Function (SF) decides when to add/delete cells, and
triggers 6P Transactions. Several SFs can be defined, each
identified by a different 6top Scheduling Function Identifier (SFID).
This document lists the requirements for an SF, but leaves the
definition of the SF out of scope. Different SFs are expected to be
defined in future companion specifications.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC
2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 26, 2017.
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. TEMPORARY EDITORIAL NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. 6TiSCH Operation Sublayer (6top) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Hard/Soft Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Using 6top with the Minimal 6TiSCH Configuration . . . . 5
4. 6top Protocol (6P) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. 6top Transaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.1. 2-step 6top Transaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.2. 3-step 6top Transaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1. 6top Information Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.2. General Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.3. 6P Command Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.4. 6P Return Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.5. 6P Cell Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.6. 6P ADD Request Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.7. 6P DELETE Request Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.8. 6P STATUS Request Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.9. 6P LIST_AB Request Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.10. 6P LIST_BA Request Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.11. 6P CLEAR Request Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.12. 6P Response Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.13. 6P Confirmation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3. Protocol Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3.1. Version Checking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3.2. SFID Checking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3.3. Concurrent 6P Transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3.4. Timeout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3.5. SeqNum Mismatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3.6. Clearing the Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3.7. Adding Cells with 2-way Transaction . . . . . . . . . 17
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
4.3.8. Aborting a 6P Transaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3.9. Deleting Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3.10. Listing Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3.11. Generation Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.3.12. Handling error responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.4. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5. Guidelines for 6top Scheduling Functions (SF) . . . . . . . . 20
5.1. SF Identifier (SFID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2. Requirements for an SF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.3. Recommended Structure of an SF Specification . . . . . . 22
6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. IANA Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix A. [TEMPORARY] IETF IE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix B. [TEMPORARY] IEEE Liaison Considerations . . . . . . 25
Appendix C. [TEMPORARY] Terms for the Terminology Draft . . . . 26
Appendix D. [TEMPORARY] Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1. TEMPORARY EDITORIAL NOTES
This document is an Internet Draft, so work-in-progress by nature.
It contains the following work-in-progress elements:
o "TODO" statements are elements which have not yet been written by
the authors for some reason (lack of time, ongoing discussions
with no clear consensus, etc). The statement does indicate that
the text will be written at some time.
o "TEMPORARY" appendices are there to capture current ongoing
discussions or the changelog of the document. These appendices
will be removed in the final text.
o "IANA_" identifiers are placeholders for numbers assigned by IANA.
These placeholders are to be replaced by the actual values they
represent after their assignment by IANA.
o This section will be removed in the final text.
2. Introduction
All communication in a 6TiSCH network is orchestrated by a schedule
[RFC7554]. This specification defines the 6top Protocol (6P), part
of the 6TiSCH Operation sublayer (6top). 6P allow a node to
communicate with a neighbor to add/delete a TSCH cell to one another.
6P hence enables distributed scheduling in a 6TiSCH network.
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
(R)
/ \
/ \
(B)-----(C)
| |
| |
(A) (D)
Figure 1: A simple 6TiSCH network.
The example network depicted in Figure 1 is used to describe the
interactions between nodes. We consider the canonical case where
node "A" issues 6P requests to node "B". We keep this example
throughout this document. Throughout the discussions, node A will
always represent the node that issues a 6P request; node B the node
that receives this request.
We consider node A in Figure 1 monitoring the communication cells it
has in its schedule to node B.
o If node A determines that the number of link-layer frames it is
sending to B per unit of time is larger than the capacity offered
by the TSCH cells it has scheduled to B, it triggers a 6P
Transaction with node B to add one or more cells to B's TSCH
schedule.
o If the traffic is lower than the capacity, node A triggers a 6P
Transaction with node B to delete one or more cells in the TSCH
schedule of both nodes.
o Node A MAY also monitor statistics to determine whether collisions
are happening on a particular cell to node B. If this feature is
enabled, node A communicates with node B to add a new cell and
delete the cell which suffered from collisions. This conceptually
results in "relocating" the cell which suffered from collisions to
a different slotOffset/channelOffset location in the TSCH
schedule. The mechanism to handle cell relocation is out of the
scope of this document and might be handled by the scheduling
function (see below).
This results in distributed schedule management in a 6TiSCH network.
The 6top Scheduling Function (SF) defines when to add/delete a cell
to a neighbor. The SF functions as a (required) add-on to 6P.
Different applications require different SFs, so the SF is left out
of scope of this document. Different SFs are expected to be defined
in future companion specifications. A node MAY implement multiple
SFs and run them at the same time. The SFID field contained in all
6P messages allows a node to switch between SFs on a per-transaction
basis.
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
Section 3 describes the 6TiSCH Operation Sublayer (6top). Section 4
defines the 6top Protocol (6P). Section 5 provides guidelines on how
to design an SF.
3. 6TiSCH Operation Sublayer (6top)
As depicted in Figure 2, the 6TiSCH Operation Sublayer (6top) is the
next higher layer to the IEEE802.15.4 TSCH medium access control
layer [IEEE802154-2015].
.
| . |
| next higher layer |
+------------------------------------------+
| 6top |
+------------------------------------------+
| IEEE802.15.4 TSCH |
| . |
.
Figure 2: The 6top sublayer in the protocol stack.
The roles of the 6top sublayer are:
o Implement and terminate the 6top Protocol (6P), which allows
neighbor nodes to communicate to add/delete cells to one another.
o Run one or more 6top Scheduling Functions (SF), which define the
algorithm to decide when to add/delete cells.
3.1. Hard/Soft Cells
6top qualifies each cell in the schedule as either "hard" or "soft":
o a Soft Cell can be read, added, deleted or updated by 6top.
o a Hard Cell is read-only for 6top.
In the context of this specification, all the cells used by 6top are
Soft Cells. Hard cells can be used for example when "hard-coding" a
scheduling. This is done, for example, in the Minimal 6TiSCH
Configuration [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal].
3.2. Using 6top with the Minimal 6TiSCH Configuration
6P MAY be used alongside the Minimal 6TiSCH Configuration
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal]. In this case, it is RECOMMENDED to use 2
slotframes, as depicted in Figure 3:
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
o Slotframe 0 is used for traffic defined in the Minimal 6TiSCH
Configuration. In Figure 3, this slotframe is 5 slots long, but
it can be of any length.
o Slotframe 1 is used by 6top to allocate cells from. In Figure 3,
this slotframe is 10 slots long, but it can be of any length.
Slotframe 0 SHOULD be of higher priority than Slotframe 1 to avoid
for cells in slotframe 1 to "mask" cells in slotframe 0. 6top MAY
support further slotframes; how to use more slotframes is out of the
scope for this document.
| 0 1 2 3 4 | 0 1 2 3 4 |
+------------------------+------------------------+
Slotframe 0 | | | | | | | | | | |
5 slots long | EB | | | | | EB | | | | |
high priority | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------+
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
+-------------------------------------------------+
Slotframe 1 | | | | | | | | | | |
10 slots long | |A->B| | | | | | |B->A| |
low priority | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------+
Figure 3: 2-slotframe structure when using 6top alongside the Minimal
6TiSCH Configuration.
4. 6top Protocol (6P)
The 6top Protocol (6P) allows two neighbor nodes to communicate to
add/delete cells to their TSCH schedule. Conceptually, two neighbor
nodes "negotiate" the location of the cell(s) to add/delete.
4.1. 6top Transaction
We call "6top Transaction" a complete negotiation between two
neighbor nodes. A 6P Transaction starts when a node wishes to add/
delete one or more cells to one of its neighbors. It ends when the
cell(s) have been added/removed from the schedule of both neighbors,
or when the 6P Transaction has failed.
A 6P Transaction can consist of 2 or 3 steps. It is the SF which
determines whether to use 2-step or 3-step transactions. An SF MAY
use both 2-step and 3-step transactions.
Consistency between the schedules of two neighbor nodes is of utmost
importance. A loss of consistency (e.g. node A has a transmit cell
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
to node B, but node B does not have the corresponding reception cell)
can cause loss of connectivity. To verify consistency, neighbors
nodes increment the "schedule generation" number of their schedule
each time they add/remove a cell. Neighbor nodes exchange generation
numbers at each 6P Transaction to detect possible inconsistencies.
This mechanism is explained in Section 4.3.11.
We reuse the topology in Figure 1 to illustrate 2-step and 3-step
transactions.
4.1.1. 2-step 6top Transaction
Figure 4 is a sequence diagram to help understand the core principle
of 6P (several elements are left out to simplify understanding). We
assume the SF running on node A determines 2 extra cells need to be
scheduled to node B. In this example, node A proposes the cells to
use.
+----------+ +----------+
| Node A | | Node B |
+----+-----+ +-----+----+
| |
| 6P ADD Request |
| NumCells = 2 |
| CellList = [(1,2),(2,2),(3,5)] |
|-------------------------------------->|
| |
| 6P Response |
| Return Code = RC_SUCCESS |
| CellList = [(2,2),(3,5)] |
|<--------------------------------------|
| |
Figure 4: A 2-step 6P Transaction.
In this example, the 2-step transaction occurs as follows:
1. The SF running on node A selects 3 candidate cells.
2. Node A sends a 6P ADD Request to node B, indicating it wishes to
add 2 cells (the "NumCells" value), and specifying the list of 3
candidate cells (the "CellList" value). Each cell in the
CellList is a (slotOffset,channelOffset) tuple.
3. Node A at the same time sets a timeout timer in order to cancel
the transaction in case a response is not received after the
timeout. The value of the timeout is out of the scope of this
document and MAY be defined by the SF. More details are given in
Section 4.3.8.
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
4. The SF running on node B selects 2 of the 3 cells in the CellList
of the 6P ADD Request. Node B sends back a 6P Response to node
A, indicating the cells it selected.
5. The result of this 6P Transaction is that 2 cells from A to B
have been added to the TSCH schedule of both nodes A and B.
4.1.2. 3-step 6top Transaction
Figure 5 is a sequence diagram to help understand the core principle
of 6P (several elements are left out to simplify understanding). We
assume the SF running on node A determines 2 extra cells need to be
scheduled to node B. In this example, node B proposes the cells to
use.
+----------+ +----------+
| Node A | | Node B |
+----+-----+ +-----+----+
| |
| 6P ADD Request |
| NumCells = 2 |
| CellList = [] |
|-------------------------------------->|
| |
| 6P Response |
| Return Code = RC_SUCCESS |
| CellList = [(1,2),(2,2),(3,5)] |
|<--------------------------------------|
| |
| 6P Confirmation |
| Return Code = RC_SUCCESS |
| CellList = [(2,2),(3,5)] |
|-------------------------------------->|
| |
Figure 5: A 3-step 6P Transaction.
In this example, the 3-step transaction occurs as follows:
1. The SF running on node A determines 2 extra cells need to be
scheduled to node B, but does not select candidate cells.
2. Node A sends a 6P ADD Request to node B, indicating it wishes to
add 2 cells (the "NumCells" value), with an empty "CellList".
3. Node A at the same time sets a timeout timer in order to cancel
the transaction in case a response is not received after the
timeout. The value of the timeout is out of the scope of this
document and MAY be defined by the SF. More details are given in
Section 4.3.8.
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
4. The SF running on node B selects 3 candidate cells. Node B sends
back a 6P Response to node A, indicating the 3 cells it selected.
5. Node B at the same time sets a timeout timer in order to cancel
the transaction in case a confirmation is not received after the
timeout. The value of the timeout is out of the scope of this
document and MAY be defined by the SF. More details are given in
Section 4.3.8.
6. The SF running on node A selects 2 cells. Node A sends back a 6P
Confirmation to node B, indicating the cells it selected.
7. The result of this 6P Transaction is that 2 cells from A to B
have been added to the TSCH schedule of both nodes A and B.
4.2. Message Format
4.2.1. 6top Information Element
6P messages are carried as payload of IEEE802.15.4 Payload
Information Elements (IE) [IEEE802154-2015]. 6p messages travel over
a single hop.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload IE Length |GroupID|T| Sub-ID |6top IE Content
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload Termination IE |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The 6top IE is an IEEE Payload IE with GroupID IANA_IETF_IE_GROUP_ID.
The 6top IE complies with the IE format defined in
[draft-kivinen-ie]. The Sub-ID used by the 6top IE is
IANA_6TOP_SUBIE_ID. The length of the 6top IE content is variable.
The content of the 6top IE is specified in Section 4.2. The Payload
Termination IE is defined by the IEEE802.15.4 standard
[IEEE802154-2015]. TODO: IETF IE specified in Appendix A for now,
but to be specified in a separate draft in the future, possibly/
probably [draft-kivinen-ie].
4.2.2. General Message Format
In all 6P messages, the 6top IE content has the following format:
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Code | SFID | SeqNum|GAB|GBA| Other Fields...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
Version (6P Version): The version of the 6P protocol. Only version
IANA_6TOP_6P_VERSION is defined in this document. Future
specifications MAY define further versions of the 6P protocol.
Code: Command to carry out or response code. The list of command
identifiers and return codes is defined only for version
IANA_6TOP_6P_VERSION in this document.
SFID (6top Scheduling Function Identifier): The identifier of the SF
to use to handle this message. The SFID is defined in
Section 5.1.
SeqNum: An identifier of the packet, used to match the 6P Request,
6P Response and 6P Confirmation of the same 6P Transaction.
The value of SeqNum MUST increment by exactly one at each new
6P request issued to the same neighbor.
GAB: Schedule Generation for the cells scheduled from node A to node
B. The generation is used to ensure consistency between the
schedule of the two neighbors. Section 4.3.11 details how
schedule generation is managed.
GBA: Schedule Generation for the cells scheduled from node B to node
A.
Other Fields: The list of other fields depends on the value of the
code field, as detailed below.
4.2.3. 6P Command Identifiers
Figure 6 lists the 6P command identifiers.
Command ID Value Description
+--------------+-----------------------+----------------------------+
| CMD_ADD | IANA_6TOP_CMD_ADD | add one or more cells |
+--------------+-----------------------+----------------------------+
| CMD_DELETE | IANA_6TOP_CMD_DELETE | delete one or more cells |
+--------------+-----------------------+----------------------------+
| CMD_STATUS | IANA_6TOP_CMD_STATUS | status of the schedule |
+--------------+-----------------------+----------------------------+
| CMD_LIST_AB | IANA_6TOP_CMD_LIST_AB | list the scheduled cells |
| | | outgoing from A to B |
+--------------+-----------------------+----------------------------+
| CMD_LIST_BA | IANA_6TOP_CMD_LIST_BA | list the scheduled cells |
| | | outgoing from B to A |
+--------------+-----------------------+----------------------------+
| CMD_CLEAR | IANA_6TOP_CMD_CLEAR | clear all cells on both |
| | | node A and node B |
+--------------+-----------------------+----------------------------+
| reserved | TODO-0xf | reserved |
+--------------+-----------------------+----------------------------+
Figure 6: 6P Command Identifiers
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
4.2.4. 6P Return Codes
Figure 7 lists the 6P Return Codes and their meaning.
Return Code Value Description
+--------------+------------------------+---------------------------+
| RC_SUCCESS | IANA_6TOP_RC_SUCCESS | operation succeeded |
+--------------+------------------------+---------------------------+
| RC_ERR_VER | IANA_6TOP_RC_ERR_VER | unsupported 6P version |
+--------------+------------------------+---------------------------+
| RC_ERR_SFID | IANA_6TOP_RC_ERR_SFID | unsupported SFID |
+--------------+------------------------+---------------------------+
| RC_ERR_GEN | IANA_6TOP_RC_ERR_GEN | schedule generation error |
+--------------+------------------------+---------------------------+
| RC_ERR_BUSY | IANA_6TOP_RC_ERR_BUSY | handling previous request |
+--------------+------------------------+---------------------------+
| RC_ERR_NORES | IANA_6TOP_RC_ERR_NORES | not enough resources |
+--------------+------------------------+---------------------------+
| RC_ERR_RESET | IANA_6TOP_RC_ERR_RESET | abort 6P Transaction |
+--------------+------------------------+---------------------------+
| RC_ERR | IANA_6TOP_RC_ERR | generic error |
+--------------+------------------------+---------------------------+
| reserved | TODO-0xf | |
+--------------+------------------------+---------------------------+
Figure 7: 6P Return Codes
4.2.5. 6P Cell Format
The 6P Cell is an element which is present in several messages. It
is a 4-byte field, its RECOMMENDED format is:
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| slotOffset | channelOffset |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
slotOffset: The slot offset of the cell.
channelOffset: The channel offset of the cell.
The CellList is an opaque set of bytes, sent unmodified to the SF.
The SF MAY redefine the format of the CellList field.
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
4.2.6. 6P ADD Request Format
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Code | SFID |SeqNum |GAB|GBA| NumCells |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Metadata | CellList ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Version: Set to IANA_6TOP_6P_VERSION.
Code: Set to CMD_ADD for a 6P ADD Request.
SFID: Identifier of the SF to be used by the receiver to handle the
message.
SeqNum: Packet identifier to match 6P Request and 6P Response.
GAB: Schedule Generation for the cells scheduled from node A to node
B.
GBA: Schedule Generation for the cells scheduled from node B to node
A.
NumCells: The number of additional TX cells the sender wants to
schedule to the receiver.
Metadata: Metadata used as extra signaling to the SF. The contents
of the Metadata field is an opaque set of bytes, and passed
unmodified to the SF. The meaning of this field depends on the
SF, and is hence out of scope of this document. One example
use can be to specify which slotframe to schedule the cells to.
CellList: A list of 0, 1 or multiple 6P Cells. The CellList is an
opaque set of bytes, sent unmodified to the SF. The
RECOMMENDED format of each 6P Cell is defined in Section 4.2.5.
The SF MAY redefine the format of the CellList field.
4.2.7. 6P DELETE Request Format
The 6P DELETE Request has the exact same format as the 6P ADD
Request, except for the code which is set to CMD_DELETE.
4.2.8. 6P STATUS Request Format
1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Code | SFID |SeqNum |GAB|GBA| Metadata
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Metadata |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Version: Set to IANA_6TOP_6P_VERSION.
Code: Set to CMD_STATUS for a 6P STATUS Request.
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
SFID: Identifier of the SF to be used by the receiver to handle the
message.
SeqNum: Packet identifier to match request and response.
GAB: Schedule Generation for the cells scheduled from node A to node
B.
GBA: Schedule Generation for the cells scheduled from node B to node
A.
Metadata: Metadata used as extra signaling to the SF. The contents
of the Metadata field is an opaque set of bytes, and passed
unmodified to the SF. The meaning of this field depends on the
SF, and is hence out of scope of this document. One example
use can be to specify which slotframe to read the cells from.
4.2.9. 6P LIST_AB Request Format
The command lists the cells scheduled from node A to node B.
1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Code | SFID | SeqNum|GAB|GBA| Metadata
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Metadata | Offset | numCells
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Version: Set to IANA_6TOP_6P_VERSION.
Code: Set to CMD_LIST_AB for a 6P LIST_AB Request.
SFID: Identifier of the SF to be used by the receiver to handle the
message.
SeqNum: Packet identifier to match request and response.
GAB: Schedule Generation for the cells scheduled from node A to node
B.
GBA: Schedule Generation for the cells scheduled from node B to node
A.
Metadata: Metadata used as extra signaling to the SF. One example
use can be to specify which slotframe to schedule the cells to.
The contents of the Metadata field is an opaque set of bytes,
and passed unmodified to the SF. The meaning of this field
depends on the SF, and is hence out of scope of this document.
Offset: The Offset of the first scheduled cell that is requested.
The mechanism assumes cells are ordered according to some rule.
The ordering rule is defined by the SF.
numCells: The number of requested cells.
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
4.2.10. 6P LIST_BA Request Format
The 6P LIST_BA Request has the exact same format as the 6P LIST_BA
Request, except for the code which is set to CMD_LIST_BA. 6P LIST_BA
lists the cells scheduled from note B to node A.
4.2.11. 6P CLEAR Request Format
The 6P CLEAR Request has the exact same format as the 6P STATUS
Request, except for the code which is set to CMD_CLEAR.
4.2.12. 6P Response Format
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Code | SFID | SeqNum|GAB|GBA| Other Fields...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Version: Set to IANA_6TOP_6P_VERSION.
SFID: Identifier of the SF to be used by the receiver to handle the
message. The response MUST contain the same SFID value as the
value in the SFID field of the 6P Request is responds to.
Code: One of the 6P Return Codes listed in Section 4.2.4.
SeqNum: Packet identifier to match request and response. The
response MUST contain the same SeqNum value as the value in the
SeqNum field of the 6P Request is responds to.
GAB: Schedule Generation for the cells scheduled from node A to node
B.
GBA: Schedule Generation for the cells scheduled from node B to node
A.
Other Fields: The contents depends on the Code field in the request,
and listed below.
When responding to an ADD, DELETE, LIST_AB or LIST_BA command, the
"Other Field" contains a list of 0, 1 or multiple 6P Cells. The
format of a 6P Cell is defined in Section 4.2.5.
When responding to an STATUS command, the "Other Field" contains
o The number of cells scheduled from node A to node B, encoded as a
2-octet unsigned integer.
o The number of cells scheduled from node B to node A, encoded as a
2-octet unsigned integer.
This is shown in Figure 8.
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Code | SFID | SeqNum|GAB|GBA| num. AB cells
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| number BA cells |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8
When responding to an CLEAR command, the "Other Field" is empty.
4.2.13. 6P Confirmation Format
A 6P Confirmation is only used in a 3-step transaction, as the third
step. A 6P Confirmation Message has the exact same format as a 6P
Response Message. It is only the fact that it appears as the third
step in a 3-step transaction that distinguishes it from a 6P
Response. In particular, the same Return Codes are used in both 6P
Response and 6P Confirmation messages. The confirmation MUST contain
the same SeqNum value as the value in the SeqNum field of the 6P
Request and 6P Response of the same transaction.
4.3. Protocol Behavior
We use the topology in Figure 1 for illustration. We assume node A
negotiates to add/delete cells to node B.
4.3.1. Version Checking
All messages contain a Version field. If multiple Versions of the 6P
protocol have been defined (in future specifications for Version
values different than IANA_6TOP_6P_VERSION), a node MAY implement
multiple protocol versions at the same time. When receiving a 6P
message with a Version number it does not implement, a node MUST
reply with a 6P Response and a return code of RC_ERR_VER. The
Version field in the 6P Response MUST be the same as the Version
field in the corresponding 6P Request.
4.3.2. SFID Checking
All messages contain a SFID field. If multiple SFs have been
defined, a node MAY support multiple SFs at the same time. When
receiving a 6P message with an unsupported SFID, a node MUST reply
with a 6P Response and a return code of RC_ERR_SFID. The Version
field in the 6P Response MUST be the same as the Version field in the
corresponding 6P Request. In a 3-step transaction, the Version field
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
in the 6P Confirmation MUST match that of the 6P Request and 6P
Response in the same transaction.
4.3.3. Concurrent 6P Transactions
Only a single 6P Transaction between two neighbors, in a given
direction, can take place at the same time. That is, a node MUST NOT
issue a new 6P Request to a given neighbor before having received the
6P Response for a previous request to that neighbor. The only
exception to this rule is when the previous 6P Transaction has timed
out. If a node receives a 6P Request from a given neighbor before
having sent the 6P Response to the previous 6P Request from that
neighbor, it MUST send back a 6P Response with a return code of
RC_ERR.
A node MAY support concurrent 6P Transactions from different
neighbors. In this case, the cells involved in the ongoing 6P
Transaction MUST be locked until the transaction finishes. For
example, in Figure 1, node C can have a different ongoing 6P
Transaction with nodes B and R. In case a node does not have enough
resources to handle concurrent 6P Transactions from different
neighbors it MUST reply with a 6P Response with return code
RC_ERR_NORES. In case the requested cells are locked, it MUST reply
to that request with a 6P Response with return code RC_ERR_BUSY. The
node receiving RC_ERR_BUSY or an RC_ERR_NORES may implement a retry
mechanism, as decided by the SF.
4.3.4. Timeout
A timeout happens when the node sending the 6P Request has not
received the 6P Response. The timeout should be longer than the
longest possible time it can take for the 6P Transaction to finish.
The value of the timeout hence depends on the number of cells
schedule between the neighbor nodes, on the maximum number of link-
layer retransmissions, etc. The SF determines the value of the
timeout. The value of the timeout is out of scope of this document.
4.3.5. SeqNum Mismatch
When a node receives a 6P Response with SeqNum value different from
the SeqNum value in the 6P Request, it MUST drop the packet and
consider the 6P Transaction as having failed. This rules applies as
well to a 6P Confirmation with a SeqNum value different from that of
the 6P Request or 6P Response of the same transaction.
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
4.3.6. Clearing the Schedule
When a 6P CLEAR command is issued from node A to node B, both nodes A
and B MUST remove all the cells scheduled between them. That is,
node A MUST remove all transmit and receive cells with node B, and
node B MUST remove all transmit and receive cells with node A. In a
6P CLEAR command, the generation counters GAB and GBA MUST NOT be
checked. That is, their value is "don't care". In particular, even
if a schedule generation mismatch is detected, it MUST NOT cause the
transaction to abort.
4.3.7. Adding Cells with 2-way Transaction
We assume the topology in Figure 1 where the SF on node A decides to
add NumCell cells to node B.
Node A's SF selects NumCandidate>=NumCell cells from its schedule as
candidate transmit cells to node B. NumCandidate MUST be larger or
equal to NumCell. How many cells it selects (NumCandidate) and how
that selection is done is specified in the SF and out of scope of
this document. Node A sends a 6P ADD Request to node B which
contains the value of NumCells and the NumCandidate cells in the
CellList.
Upon receiving the request, node B's SF verifies which of the cells
in the CellList it can add as receive cells from node A in its own
schedule. How that selection is done is specified in the SF and out
of scope of this document. That verification can succeed (NumCell
cells from the CellList can be used), fail (none of the cells from
the CellList can be used) or partially succeed (less than NumCell
cells from the CellList can be used). In all cases, node B MUST send
a 6P Response with return code set to RC_SUCCESS, and which specifies
the list of cells that were scheduled as receive cells from A. That
can contain 0 elements (when the verification failed), NumCell
elements (succeeded) or between 0 and NumCell elements (partially
succeeded).
Upon receiving the response, node A adds the cells specified in the
CellList as transmit (Tx) cells to node B.
4.3.8. Aborting a 6P Transaction
In case the receiver of a 6top request fails during a 6P Transaction
and is unable to complete it, it SHOULD reply to that request with a
6P Response with return code RC_ERR_RESET. Upon receiving this 6top
reply, the initiator of the 6P Transaction MUST consider the 6P
Transaction as failed.
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
4.3.9. Deleting Cells
The behavior for deleting cells is equivalent to that of adding cells
except that:
o The nodes delete the cells they agree upon rather than adding
them.
o All cells in the CellList MUST be already scheduled between the
two nodes.
o If the CellList in the 6P Request is empty, the SF on the
receiving node is free to delete any cell from the sender.
o The CellList in a 6P Request (2-step transaction) or 6P Response
(3-step transaction) MUST either be empty, contain exactly NumCell
cells, or more than NumCell cells. The case where the CellList is
not empty but contains less than NumCell cells is not supported.
4.3.10. Listing Cells
When a node A issues a LIST_AB or LIST_BA command, it specifies:
o Through the "Offset" field, the offset of the first cell to be
present in the returned list. The cell ordering policy is defined
by the SF.
o Through the "numCells" field, the number of cells to be present in
the reponse.
When receiving a LIST_AB command, node B returns the cells that are
scheduled from A to B in its schedule (i.e. receive cells from node
A). When receiving a LIST_BA command, node B returns the cells that
are scheduled from B to A in its schedule (i.e. transmit cells to
node A). The RECOMMENDED format of each 6P Cell is defined in
Section 4.2.5. The SF MAY redefine the format of the CellList field.
Depending on how many cells node B has in its schedule with match the
LIST_AB or LIST_BA request, the cellList returned in the 6P Response
contains between 0 and numCells cells:
o If node B has more than Offset+numCells cells, the cellList it
returns contains exactly numCells cells.
o If node B has N cells, where Offset<N and N<Offset+numCells cells,
the cellList it returns contains exactly N-Offset cells.
o If node B has less than Offset cells, the cellList it returns is
empty.
If node A requests more cells than can fit in the response, node B
MUST return code RC_ERR_NORES and an empty cell list.
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
4.3.11. Generation Management
For each neighbor, a node maintains 2 two-bit generation numbers.
These numbers are variables internal to the node.
o GTX is the generation number for the transmission cells to the
neighbor.
o GRX is the generation number for the receive cells from the
neighbor.
4.3.11.1. Incrementing GTX and GRX
GTX and GRX are 2-bit variables. Their possible values are:
Value Meaning
+-----------+---------------------------+
| 0b00 | Clear or never scheduled |
+-----------+---------------------------+
| 0b01-0b10 | Lollipop Counter values |
+-----------+---------------------------+
| 0b11 | Reserved |
+-----------+---------------------------+
Figure 9: Possible values of the GRX and GTX generation numbers.
GTX and GRX are set to 0 upon initialization, and after a 6P CLEAR
command. GTX and GRX are incremented by 1 after each time a cell
with that neighbor is added/deleted from the schedul (e.g. after a
succesful 6P ADD or 6P DELETE transactions). The value rolls over to
0b01 after 0b10. This results in a lollipop counter with 0x00 the
start value and 0b01 and 0b10 the count values.
4.3.11.2. Setting GAB and GBA fields
Each 6P message contains a GAB and GBA, used to indicate the current
generation counters of the node transmitting the message. The value
of the GAB and GBA fields MUST be set according to the following
rules:
o When node A sends a 6P Request of 6P confirmation to node B, node
A sets GAB to its GTX and GBA to its GRX.
o When node B sends a 6P Response to node A, node B sets GAB to its
GRX and GBA to its GTX.
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
4.3.11.3. Detecting and Handling Schedule Generation Inconsistencies
Upon receiving a 6P message, a node MUST do the following checks:
o When node B receives a 6P Request of 6P confirmation from node A,
it verifies that GAB==GRX and GBA==GTX.
o When node A receives a 6P Response from node B, it verifies that
GAB==GTX and GBA==GRX.
If any of these comparisons is false, the node has detected a
schedule generation inconsistency.
When a schedule generation inconsistency is detected:
o If the code of the 6P Request is different from CMD_CLEAR, the
node MUST reply with error code RC_ERR_GEN.
o If the code of the 6P Request is CMD_CLEAR, the schedule
generation inconsistency MUST be ignored.
It is up to the Scheduling Function to define the action to take when
an schedule generation inconsistency is detected. The RECOMMENDED
action is to issue a 6P CLEAR command.
4.3.12. Handling error responses
A return code with a name starting with "RC_ERR" in Figure 7
indicates an error. When a node receives a 6P Response with such an
error, it MUST consider the 6P Transaction failed. In particular, if
this was a response to a 6P ADD/DELETE Request, the node MUST NOT
add/delete any of the cells involved in this 6P Transaction.
Similarly, a node sending a 6P Response with an "RC_ERR" return code
MUST NOT add/delete any cells as part of that 6P Transaction.
Defining what to do after an error has occurred is out of scope of
this document. The SF defines what to do after an error has
occurred.
4.4. Security
6P messages are secured through link-layer security. When link-layer
security is enabled, the 6P messages MUST be secured. This is
possible because 6P messages are carried as Payload IE.
5. Guidelines for 6top Scheduling Functions (SF)
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
5.1. SF Identifier (SFID)
Each SF has an identifier. The identifier is encoded as a 1-byte
field. The identifier space is divided in the following ranges.
Range Meaning
+-----------+-------------+
| 0x00-0xef | managed |
+-----------+--------------
| 0xf0-0xfe | unmanaged |
+-----------+-------------+
| 0xff | reserved |
+-----------+-------------+
Figure 10: SFID range.
SF identifiers in the managed space MUST be managed by IANA.
5.2. Requirements for an SF
The specification for an SF
o MUST specify an identifier for that SF.
o MUST specify the rule for a node to decide when to add/delete one
or more cells to a neighbor.
o MUST specify the rule for a Transaction source to select cells to
add to the CellList field in the 6P ADD Request.
o MUST specify the rule for a Transaction destination to select
cells from CellList to add to its schedule.
o MUST specify a value for the 6P Timeout, or a rule/equation to
calculate it.
o MUST specify a meaning for the "Metadata" field in the 6P ADD
Request.
o MUST specify the behavior of a node when it boots.
o MUST specify what to do after an error has occurred (either the
node sent a 6P Response with an error code, or received one).
o MUST specify the list of statistics to gather. An example
statistic if the number of transmitted frames to each neighbor.
In case the SF requires no statistics to be gathered, the specific
of the SF MUST explicitly state so.
o SHOULD clearly state the application domain the SF is created for.
o SHOULD contain examples which highlight normal and error
scenarios.
o SHOULD contain a list of current implementations, at least during
the I-D state of the document, per [RFC6982].
o SHOULD contain a performance evaluation of the scheme, possibly
through references to external documents.
o MAY redefine the format of the CellList field.
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
5.3. Recommended Structure of an SF Specification
The following section structure for a SF document is RECOMMENDED:
o Introduction
o Scheduling Function Identifier
o Rules for Adding/Deleting Cells
o Rules for CellList
o 6P Timeout Value
o Meaning of the Metadata Field
o Node Behavior at Boot
o 6P Error Handling
o Examples
o Implementation Status
o Security Considerations
o IANA Considerations
6. Implementation Status
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC6982].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC6982], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
ETSI 6TiSCH/6lo plugtests: 6P was one of the protocols addressed
during the ETSI 6TiSCH #3 plugtests organized on 15-17 July 2016
in Berlin, Germany. 15 entities participated in this event,
verifying the compliance and interoperability of their
implementation of 6P. This event happened under NDA, so neither
the name of the entities nor the test results are public. This
event is, however, a clear indication of the maturity of 6P, and
the interest it generates. More information about the event at
http://www.etsi.org/news-events/events/1077-6tisch-6lo-plugtests.
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
ETSI 6TiSCH #2 plugtests: 6P was one of two protocols addressed
during the ETSI 6TiSCH #2 plugtests organized on 2-4 February 2016
in Paris, France. 14 entities participated in this event,
verifying the compliance and interoperability of their
implementation of 6P. This event happened under NDA, so neither
the name of the entities nor the test results are public. This
event is, however, a clear indication of the maturity of 6P, and
the interest it generates. More information about the event at
http://www.etsi.org/news-events/events/1022-6TiSCH-2-plugtests.
OpenWSN: 6P is implemented in the OpenWSN project [OpenWSN] under a
BSD open-source license. The authors of this document are
collaborating with the OpenWSN community to gather feedback about
the status and performance of the protocols described in this
document. TODO: Results from that discussion will appear in this
section in future revision of this specification. More
information about this implementation at http://www.openwsn.org/.
Wireshark Dissector: A Wireshark dissector for 6P is implemented
under a BSD open-source license. It is not yet merged into the
main Wireshark build, but can be downloaded at https://github.com/
openwsn-berkeley/dissectors/.
7. Security Considerations
TODO: explicit risks
6P messages are carried inside IEEE802.15.4 Payload Information
Elements (IEs). Those Payload IEs are encrypted and authenticated at
the link layer through CCM*. 6P benefits from the same level of
security as any other Payload IE. The 6P protocol does not define
its own security mechanisms. A key management solution is out of
scope for this document. The 6P protocol will benefit for the key
management solution used in the network.
8. IANA Consideration
TODO: write out this section as soon as the discussion with the IEEE
about a possible IETF IE ID has concluded.
o TODO: IANA_IETF_IE_GROUP_ID
o TODO: IANA_6TOP_SUBIE_ID
o TODO: IANA_6TOP_6P_VERSION
o TODO: IANA_6TOP_CMD_ADD
o TODO: IANA_6TOP_CMD_DELETE
o TODO: IANA_6TOP_CMD_STATUS
o TODO: IANA_6TOP_CMD_LIST_OUT
o TODO: IANA_6TOP_CMD_LIST_IN
o TODO: IANA_6TOP_CMD_CLEAR
o TODO: IANA_6TOP_RC_SUCCESS
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
o TODO: IANA_6TOP_RC_ERR_VER
o TODO: IANA_6TOP_RC_ERR_SFID
o TODO: IANA_6TOP_RC_ERR_GEN
o TODO: IANA_6TOP_RC_ERR_BUSY
o TODO: IANA_6TOP_RC_ERR_NORES
o TODO: IANA_6TOP_RC_ERR_RESET
o TODO: IANA_6TOP_RC_ERR
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[IEEE802154-2015]
IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE Std
802.15.4-2015 - IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless
Personal Area Networks (WPANs)", October 2015.
[draft-kivinen-ie]
IETF. draft-kivinen-802-15-ie (work in progress), "IEEE
802.15.4 Information Element for IETF", April 2016.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC7554] Watteyne, T., Ed., Palattella, M., and L. Grieco, "Using
IEEE 802.15.4e Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) in the
Internet of Things (IoT): Problem Statement", RFC 7554,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7554, May 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7554>.
[RFC6982] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 6982,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6982, July 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6982>.
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal]
Vilajosana, X. and K. Pister, "Minimal 6TiSCH
Configuration", draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-16 (work in
progress), June 2016.
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-terminology]
Palattella, M., Thubert, P., Watteyne, T., and Q. Wang,
"Terminology in IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE
802.15.4e", draft-ietf-6tisch-terminology-07 (work in
progress), March 2016.
[OpenWSN] Watteyne, T., Vilajosana, X., Kerkez, B., Chraim, F.,
Weekly, K., Wang, Q., Glaser, S., and K. Pister, "OpenWSN:
a Standards-Based Low-Power Wireless Development
Environment", Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications
Technologies , August 2012.
Appendix A. [TEMPORARY] IETF IE
[draft-kivinen-ie] has been published and will probably replace this
section. As soon as [draft-kivinen-ie] is adopted, we will remove
this section and revise this document if needed.
This section contains a proposal for the specification of an IETF IE.
If this proposal is supported by the 6TiSCH WG, the authors of this
draft recommend for the specification of the IETF IE to be its own
draft, possibly developed in the 6TiSCH WG. The reason for having it
a separated document is that the scope of the IETF IE is wider that
the 6P protocol defined in this document.
The proposal is to use an IETF IE, a IEEE802.15.4 Payload Information
Element with the Group ID set to IANA_IETF_IE_GROUP_ID. The value of
IANA_IETF_IE_GROUP_ID is defined by the IEEE, communicated to the
IETF, and noted by IANA. The format of the IETF IE is exactly the
same as the format of an MLME Information Element, as specified in
[IEEE802154-2015], Section 5.2.4.5. The difference is that the space
of Sub-IDs is managed by the IETF/IANA. The Sub-ID used by 6top
commands is IANA_6TOP_SUBIE_ID with value 0x00.
Other options are being discussed between the IETF 6TiSCH WG and the
IEEE 6TiSCH IG, and listed in https://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/6tisch/current/msg04469.html. These options concern the
way 6P Messages are transported as IEEE802.15.4 IEs, and do not
impact the format of those messages.
Appendix B. [TEMPORARY] IEEE Liaison Considerations
This liaison work has resulted in the publication of
[draft-kivinen-ie]. As soon as [draft-kivinen-ie] is adopted, we
will remove this section and revise this document if needed.
If the specification described in this document is supported by the
6TiSCH WG, the authors of this document ask the 6TiSCH WG chairs to
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
liaise with the IEEE to request a Payload Information Element Group
ID to be assigned to the IETF (Group ID IANA_IETF_IE_GROUP_ID
described in Appendix A).
Appendix C. [TEMPORARY] Terms for the Terminology Draft
Terms introduced by this document, and which needs to be added to
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-terminology]:
TODO: add terms?
Appendix D. [TEMPORARY] Changelog
o draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol-02
* Rename COUNT to STATUS
* Split LIST to LIST AB and LIST BA
* Added generation counters and describing generation tracking of
the schedule
* Editorial changes (figs, typos, ...)
o draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol-01
* Clarifying locking of resources in concurrent transactions
* Clarifying return of RC_ERR_BUSY in case of concurrent
transactions without enough resources
o draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol-00
* Informational to Std track
o draft-wang-6tisch-6top-protocol-00
* Editorial overhaul: fixing typos, increasing readability,
clarifying figures.
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-protocol/
issues/47
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-protocol/
issues/54
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-protocol/
issues/55
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-protocol/
issues/49
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-protocol/
issues/53
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-protocol/
issues/44
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-protocol/
issues/48
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-protocol/
issues/43
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-protocol/
issues/52
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-protocol/
issues/45
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-protocol/
issues/51
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-protocol/
issues/50
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-protocol/
issues/46
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-protocol/
issues/41
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-protocol/
issues/42
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-protocol/
issues/39
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-protocol/
issues/40
o draft-wang-6tisch-6top-sublayer-05
* Specifies format of IE
* Adds token in messages to match request and response
o draft-wang-6tisch-6top-sublayer-04
* Renames IANA_6TOP_IE_GROUP_ID to IANA_IETF_IE_GROUP_ID.
* Renames IANA_CMD and IANA_RC to IANA_6TOP_CMD and IANA_6TOP_RC.
* Proposes IANA_6TOP_SUBIE_ID with value 0x00 for the 6top sub-
IE.
o draft-wang-6tisch-6top-sublayer-03
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-
protocol/issues/32/missing-command-list
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-
protocol/issues/31/missing-command-count
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-
protocol/issues/30/missing-command-clear
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-protocol/
issues/37/6top-atomic-transaction-6p-transaction
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-
protocol/issues/35/separate-opcode-from-rc
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-
protocol/issues/36/add-length-field-in-ie
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-
protocol/issues/27/differentiate-rc_err_busy-and
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-
protocol/issues/29/missing-rc-rc_reset
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-
protocol/issues/28/the-sf-must-specify-the-behavior-of-a-mote
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft 6tisch-6top-protocol July 2016
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-
protocol/issues/26/remove-including-their-number
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-protocol/
issues/34/6of-sf
* https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-wang-6tisch-6top-
protocol/issues/33/add-a-figure-showing-the-negociation
o draft-wang-6tisch-6top-sublayer-02
* introduces the 6P protocol and the notion of 6top Transaction.
* introduces the concept of 6OF and its 6OFID.
Authors' Addresses
Qin Wang (editor)
Univ. of Sci. and Tech. Beijing
30 Xueyuan Road
Beijing, Hebei 100083
China
Phone: +86 (10) 6233 4781
Email: wangqin@ies.ustb.edu.cn
Xavier Vilajosana
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
156 Rambla Poblenou
Barcelona, Catalonia 08018
Spain
Phone: +34 (646) 633 681
Email: xvilajosana@uoc.edu
Wang & Vilajosana Expires January 26, 2017 [Page 28]