Erwan Livolant

Pascale Minet

Thomas Watteyne

The Cost of Installing a Communication Schedule in a 6TiSCH Low-Power Wireless Network using CoAP (Extended Version)

Keywords: Low-Power Wireless Mesh Networks, IEEE802.15.4e TSCH, 6TiSCH, CoAP, OCARI Réseaux Contraints Radio Multi-Sauts, IEEE802.15.4e TSCH, 6TiSCH, CoAP, OCARI

Scheduling in a IEEE802.15.4e TSCH (6TiSCH) low-power wireless network can be done in a centralized or distributed way. When using centralized scheduling, a scheduler installs a communication schedule into the network. This can be done in a standards-based way using CoAP. In this report, we compute the number of packets and the latency this takes, on real-world examples. The result is that the cost is very high using today's standards, much higher than when using an ad-hoc solution such as OCARI. We conclude by making recommendations to drastically reduce the number of messages and improve the eciency of the standardized approach.

RR n°8817 1 Context

Low-Power Wireless Mesh Networks support applications with strong requirements in terms of latency, energy eciency and reliability. To cope with these requirements, the IEEE802.15.4e amendment [START_REF]IEEE, IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networksPart 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR-WPANs) Amendment 1: MAC Sublayer[END_REF] introduces the Time Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) mode. This mode uses time slotted medium access control, coupled with channel hopping. A Slotframe, depicted in Fig. 1, is a sequence of time slots. These timeslots can be scheduled to enable collision-free wireless communication between the nodes in the network. This schedule is periodically computed and installed into the network. In this report, we focus on the cost of installing this schedule. These applications are in charge of data gathering: data measured by wireless sensor nodes are transferred to a sink, possibly over multiple hops. To improve the quality of data gathered, the network must meet the requirements listed above.

In this document, we consider an IEEE802.15.4e TSCH network. This network operates according to a schedule, which indicate for each time slot and each channel the nodes that communicate. To ensure determinism of the medium access, the schedule must be built collisionfree. We assume that this schedule is computed in a centralized way, usually by the sink node.

In this report, we want to evaluate the number of messages it takes to install this schedule on all sensor nodes, using the CoAP standard [START_REF] Shelby | The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)[END_REF]. We compare these results with an ad hoc solution based on OCARI [START_REF] Al Agha | Cross-layering in an Industrial Wireless Sensor Network: Case Study of OCARI[END_REF].

The remaining of this research report is organized as follows. Section 2 denes the problem, including the assumptions and models adopted. Section 3 compares dierent solutions based on IETF standards, and an ad-hoc solution called OCARI. Section 4 makes recommendations to reduce the number of messages in these standardized solutions. Section 5 concludes this paper.

Inria 2 Problem Statement

We rst dene the problem considered in this research report.

Models and assumptions

A 6TiSCH network is based on the IEEE802.15.4e TSCH [START_REF]IEEE, IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networksPart 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR-WPANs) Amendment 1: MAC Sublayer[END_REF] standard. On top of it, there is 6loWPAN [START_REF] Montenegro | Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE[END_REF] that allows the use of IPv6. The transport protocol used is UDP. The RPL [START_REF] Winter | RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks[END_REF] routing protocol builds the destination-oriented directed acyclic graph (DODAG) rooted at the sink. This DODAG enables each node that is not the sink to know its parent in the routing tree.

Finally, CoAP [START_REF] Shelby | The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)[END_REF] is used at the application layer. The resulting protocol stack is depicted in Fig. 2. The schedule orchestrating all communication consists of a list of assignations. We assume that any schedule has a sequence number ScheduleN umber given by the scheduler and kept on each wireless sensor node. Each assignation of the schedule describes a transmission in the network. An assignation is a tuple (SlotOf f set, ChannelOf f set, T x, Rx), where T x is the address of the transmitter and Rx is the address of the receiver.

+------------------------------------------+ | CoAP | | RPL | +------------------------------------------+ | UDP | +------------------------------------------+ | IPv6 | +------------------------------------------+ | 6LoWPAN HC | +------------------------------------------+ | 6top | +------------------------------------------+ | IEEE 802.15.4e TSCH | +------------------------------------------+ | IEEE 802.15.4 PHY | +------------------------------------------+

Notations

In this paper, we adopt the following notations.

Let N assign be the number of assignations in the new schedule. Let Gen(u) denote the number of messages locally generated by node u. Let T rans(u) be the number of transmissions of node u in the new schedule. This number includes the messages locally generated by u, and the messages received from its children and forwarded to its parent.

Let Depth(u) denote the depth of node u in the DODAG. Let Child(u) be the set of children of node u in the DODAG. Let B(u) be the number of blocks of size BlockSize needed to transfer the information related to cells involving node u.

Let Bsched be the number of blocks of size BlockSize needed to transfer the information related to the whole schedule.

Let BlockSize be the maximum size of blocks allowed in the useful payload. The value of BlockSize depends on the method chosen to transfer the schedule, as described in Section 3.

RR n°8817

Let P be the number of nodes that are parents in the DODAG. This number includes the sink node.

Let CoAP con denote a CoAP message that should be conrmed. Let CoAP ack be the acknowledgment of a CoAP message. Let N f ield denote the number of elds that are updated per cell.

The dierent elds of a cell [START_REF] Van Der Stok | CoAP Management Interface[END_REF] that should be updated are:

SlotOf f set denes, with the ChannelOset, the cell considered in the schedule, ChannelOf f set denes, with the SlotOset, the cell considered in the schedule, LinkOption species the role of the node: Transmitter (Tx) or Receiver (Rx);

N odeAddress denotes the node address of the remote node in the assignation received.

Properties

Since any node u has to transmit its own messages Gen(u) as well as all messages it receives from its children, we get the following property: Property 1 Assuming that any node u = sink generates locally Gen(u) messages per slotframe, it needs to transmit T rans(u) messages per slotframe, with

T rans(u) = v∈subtree(u) Gen(v), (1)
where subtree(u) denotes all nodes belonging to the subtree rooted at u, including node u itself.

Taking into account the dierent communication protocols used by the wireless sensor nodes, and given in Section 2.1, we compute the available payload in a CoAP message, using the formats depicted in Fig. 3 for the MAC frame and Fig. 4 More precisely, when the Block option [START_REF] Bormann | Block-wise Transfers in CoAP[END_REF] is used to fragment a long CoAP datagram into blocks, the size of the Option Delta extended eld is taken equal to one octet, whereas the size of the Option value eld depends on the block numbering used, as illustrated in Fig. 5. The smallest size is 2 octets, meaning that blocks are numbered on 4 bits, leading to a maximum number of blocks of 16. If the number of blocks exceeds 16, then a numbering on 12 bits is used, leading to a maximum number of blocks of 4096. In our computation, we take into account the two possibilities.

Table 1 gives the size of the successive payloads available at each layer in the protocol stack.

The PHY layer MTU IEEE802.15.4 [START_REF]IEEE, IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networksPart 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR-WPANs)[END_REF] is 127 bytes. MAC header and footer require a total of 29 bytes in the context of the IEEE802.15.4e TSCH mode Indeed, authors of [START_REF] Vilajosana | Minimal 6TiSCH Conguration[END_REF] determine that data messages must provide in their MAC header elds 64-bit addresses for the destination and the source. Moreover, the Auxiliary Security Inria 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +- --------------+--------------- --------------+--------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Finally, the MAC payload contains 98 bytes.

+ | | | | Option Delta | Option Length | 1 byte | | | +-
+ \ \ / Option Delta / 0-2 bytes \ (extended) \ +-
+ \ \ / Option Length / 0-2 bytes \ (extended) \ +-
At the Network layer, the protocol requires 19 bytes for the IP compressed header (2 bytes), the Hop limit (1 byte) and the Source and Destination addresses coded on 8 bytes each.

At the Transport layer, the payload is reduced by 2 bytes corresponding to the UDP compressed header and the destination and source port coded together in 1 byte.

RR n°8817

At the Application layer, the size of the applicative payload, depends on the CoAP option used. Fisrt, 4 bytes of header and 1 byte of payload marker are required. Moreover, the URI targeting the resource is denes as follows: /mg/6t/hash where /mg/6t/ is the main path to the 6top management resources and hash is a hash of 30 bits (4 bytes) dening the rest of the path towards the targeted resource.

The three dierent possibilities studied are: without fragmentation, with less than 16 fragments and with less than 4096 fragments. In any case, we get a useful payload whose size is less than 61 bytes. For the Block option, it is specied in CoAP that the block size should be a power of two. As a consequence, the only possibility with this payload size is a block size of 32 bytes.

Problem denition

With the assumptions given in Section 2.1, the problem consists in computing the number of messages it takes to install a new schedule, as a function of various parameters such as the number of wireless sensor nodes, or the number of cells in the schedule. More precisely, the scheduler computes the new schedule and uses CoAP messages to send the elds values of the cells to each node. Each wireless node in the network should know all the information related to, on the one hand the cells in which it transmits, on the other hand the cells in which it receives.

We distinguish dierent solutions, depending on the entity updated each time (e.g. a cell or a list of cells), what is updated (e.g. the whole schedule or only the dierences with regard to the current one), the type of communication used (e.g. broadcast, unicast).

Inria 3

Standards-based and Ad-hoc Solutions

Illustrative example

As an illustrative example, we consider the topology depicted in Fig. 6a, in which solid lines represent links in the DODAG rooted at node 1, and the dashed lines represent additional links (i.e. links that are not used to forward data to the sink). In this conguration, three channels are available for the network, and the sink is assumed to be equipped with 3 radio interfaces. All nodes generate one message per SlotFrame, except nodes 2, 5 and 10 that generate 2 messages.

We rst assume that the network consists of 12 wireless nodes (i.e. node 13 is not present). We evaluate the total number of control messages needed to install the rst schedule, considering the ve solutions described in the following sections. In a second step, we assume that node 13 joins the network, we then evaluate the total number of control messages it takes to update and install the schedule.

Figs. 6b and 6c depict the schedules computed by MODESA [START_REF] Soua | MODESA: An Optimized Multichannel Slot Assignment for Raw Data Convergecast in Wireless Sensor Networks[END_REF], with and without node

4→1 2→1 4→1 2→1 4→1 2→1 4→1 2→1 4→1 1 3→1 10→3 3→1 11→3 3→1 12→4 3→1 5→4 3→1 2 2→1 5→4 9→2 6→4 8→2 10→3 13→2 7→3
(c) Second schedule computed by MODESA with the node 13. Property 2 In both cases, the schedules computed by MODESA are optimal in term of number of slots. The minimum number of slots is equal to max(S n , S t ) with S n = u =sink Gen(u)/g and

S t = Gen(Child1)+2 v∈Subtree(Child1),v =Child1 Gen(v)+δ with g = min(n interf , n channel , n child ) RR n°8817
and δ = 1 if the (g + 1) th child requires the same number of transmissions as Child1, the most transmitting child of the sink, and δ = 0 otherwise. This property was proved in [START_REF] Soua | A Distributed Joint Channel and Slot Assignment for Convergecast in Wireless Sensor Networks[END_REF].

Ad-hoc Solution

The ad-hoc solution presented in Fig. 7 is based on the OCARI [START_REF] Chalhoub | Specications and Evaluation of a MAC Protocol for a LP-WPAN[END_REF] protocol. OCARI schedules activities in the network in a cycle organized in four periods.

First, OCARI synchronizes the network in a multihop way by cascading beacons during the [T0,T1] period. With this synchronized network, the rendez-vous T1 and T2 are known by every node of the network.

The period [T1,T2] is dedicated to control trac used to collect network characteristics in order to compute a schedule for user data.

Period [T2,T3] allows user data gathering.

Finally, the period [T3,T0'] is a sleep period, all nodes sleep to save energy. In our previous illustrative example, the rst schedule to install is made of 24 assignations and the second one is composed of 26 assignations. Therefore, we need to transmit 24 * 7 = 168 bytes for the rst schedule and 26 * 7 = 182 bytes for the second. Since in our ad-hoc solution the maximum payload available in a beacon is 80 bytes, we need 3 messages sent by each parent node, leading to a total of 3 * 4 = 12 messages, since in our example P = 4 parent nodes.

Updating Fields One-by-One

In the naive solution, the scheduler transfers each cell eld, one by one, for any assignation present in its new schedule, both on the transmitter and on the receiver if it is not the scheduler node itself. The update is made by a POST in CoAP that is acknowledged.

To update a eld cell on a node, the scheduler sends one CoAP con message and receives one CoAP ack acknowledgment. Since each assignation requires the update of N f ield cell elds on each node involved (transmitter or receiver), the scheduler will send N f ield CoAP con messages and receive N f ield CoAP ack acknowledgments for each assignation where the receiver is not the scheduler node itself. To evaluate the total number of messages transiting in the network, we have to take into account the distance in number of hops of each node u to the scheduler node, that is Depth(u). Any node u = sink should be notied for the T rans(u) assignations for which it is transmitter. This generates a total of N f ield • (1CoAP con + 1CoAP ack) u =sink T rans(u) • Depth(u) control messages in the network. Similarly, node u Inria should be notied for the v∈Child(u) T rans(v) assignations for which it is receiver. This generates a total of N f ield•(1CoAP con+1CoAP ack) u =sink Depth(u) v∈Child(u) T rans(v) control messages in the network.

This results in the total number of messages denoted N msg(N aive), see [START_REF] Shelby | The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)[END_REF].

N msg(N aive) = N f ield • (1CoAP con + 1CoAP ack)• u =sink Depth(u)   T rans(u) + v∈Child(u) T rans(v)   (2)

REQ:

POST coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList/nodeAddress/?slotOffset=3&channelOffset=1 3 Table 2 presents the number of messages required for rst installing the schedule computed for a network of 12 nodes (see Fig. 6a), then updating this schedule taking into account the new node 13. We can notice that it could be clearly prohibitive to use this method due to the strong overhead induced in a small network.

Send a PATCH to Each Node

In this second solution, the scheduler transfers at once a list of cells that must be updated.

More precisely, it sends only the dierences between the current schedule and the new one using the PATCH option. The scheduler sends to each node u, B(u) blocks containing the patches involving u either as transmitter or as receiver and receives an acknowledgment per block, as recommended by [START_REF] Van Der Stok | CoAP Management Interface[END_REF]. The total number of messages transiting in the network is formalized in (3).

N msg(P atch) = (1CoAP con + 1CoAP ack)

• u =sink B(u) • Depth(u) (3)

RR n°8817

An example of such a PATCH is described in Fig. 9. In this PATCH request written as recommended in [START_REF] Van Der Stok | Patch Method for Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)[END_REF], the two communications involving node 5 in the rst schedule are presented as one transmission towards node 2 and another towards node 4.

REQ: PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=0&channelOffset=2", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=0&channelOffset=2", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=5&channelOffset=2", "value": 4 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/LinkType?slotOffset=5&channelOffset=2", "value": 1 } ] Figure 9: Example of a PATCH request that installs the schedule on node 5. Table 3 presents the number of messages required for installing and updating the schedule computed for our illustrative network (see Fig. 6a).

We notice that the PATCH method introduces a large overhead even for a small network.

Broadcast the Complete Schedule to all Nodes

In this solution, the scheduler broadcasts the complete schedule using a specic JSON document syntax. Each node u lters only the cells it is involved in. To be sure that each node receives the new schedule, the scheduler initially makes an Observe of the Schedule Number on each node. Hence, each time, this number is increased, the scheduler is notied. This N otif y is Inria interpreted by the scheduler as an acknowledgment of the successful receipt of the schedule with the Sequence Number given.

To disseminate an Observe on all nodes except the sink requires P messages. This broadcast is done at network initialization and each time a new node joins the network.

To disseminate Bsched blocks of 32 bytes on on all nodes except the sink requires P • Bsched messages.

To notify the scheduler of a change of the schedule number on all nodes except the sink requires u =sink Depth(u) messages.

At each new schedule, a total number of control messages transiting in the network is at (4).

δ P is 1 if at least a new node has joined the network since the last transmission of the Observe, This request is also broadcast to all nodes of the network including the joining node 13. The length of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing our schedule is 159 bytes.

0 otherwise. N msg(Broadcast) = P • Bsched + u =sink Depth(u) + δ P • P (4)

RR n°8817

This CBOR transcription is divided into 5 fragments of 32 bytes, hence Bsched = 5. As in the previous case, the number of parents broadcasting the schedule is P = 4 but now the sum of depths of nodes is u =sink Depth(u) = 21. For this second schedule, node 13 just joined the network, hence δ P = 1. Finally, msg(Broadcast) = 4 • 5 + 21 + 1 • 4 = 45.

REQ: POST coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/schedule { "ScheduleNumber": "2", "Schedule": [ Figure 11: A POST request broadcasting the updated schedule to all nodes in the network.

The overhead associated with this method for installing or updating a schedule is smaller compared to the naive and patch methods. However, the overhead increases with the amount of trac in the network. It can be prohibitive to broadcast a huge schedule particularly for a small update. One option is to only sends a DIFF of the schedule.

Broadcast a DIFF of the Schedule to all Nodes

In this solution, the scheduler broadcasts only the dierences between the current schedule and the new one, using a specic JSON document syntax. Each node u lters only the cells involving it as transmitter or receiver.

To ensure that each node receives the new schedule, the scheduler initially makes an Observe of the Schedule Number on each node. Hence, each time, this number is increased, the scheduler is notied. This N otif y is interpreted by the scheduler as an acknowledgment of the successful receipt of the schedule with the Sequence Number given.

Fig. 12 depicts the POST request with a JSON document describing the rst schedule of our illustrative example. This request is broadcast to all nodes of the network. The length of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing our schedule is 144 bytes. This CBOR transcription is divided into 5 fragments of 32 bytes, hence Bsched = 5. In our example topology, the number of parents broadcasting the schedule is P = 4 (node 1, 2, 3, 4) and the sum of depths Inria Figure 12: A POST request broadcasting the rst schedule as a DIFF to all nodes in the network.

Fig. 13 depicts the same POST request for the second schedule of our illustrative example.

This request is also broadcast to all nodes of the network including the joining node 13. The length of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing our schedule is 141 bytes.

This CBOR transcription is divided into 5 fragments of 32 bytes, hence Bsched = 5. As in the previous case, the number of parents broadcasting the schedule is P = 4 but now the sum of depths of nodes is u =sink Depth(u) = 21. For this second schedule, node 13 just joined the network so δ P = 1. Finally, msg(Broadcast) = 4 • 5 + 21 + 1 • 4 = 45.

We can notice that the DIFF method requires the same overhead as the simple broadcast for the our illustrative network. However, when few transmissions have to be updated in a large scale network with a long schedule description, this DIFF method is more ecient.

RR n°8817

Figure 13: A POST request broadcasting the updated schedule as a DIFF to all nodes in the network.

Comparative Evaluation

Table 4 shows a synthetic view of the number of messages needed to install and update a schedule, for the small illustrative network of Section 3.1. Available standardized mechanisms must be improved in order to be deployed in real implementation. In the next section, we propose three recommendations allowing a substantial performance saving. We propose some recommendations to decrease the number of messages needed to install a schedule using CoAP.

Short Addresses at MAC layer

If an association mechanism could be implemented in a multi-hop fashion in order to ensure that the LBR can do the mapping between Long and Short Addresses, 12 bytes could be saved at the MAC layer using the short addresses. The payload at MAC layer can then be extended to 110 bytes and the maximum applicative payload could be higher than 64 bytes (73 bytes exactly). So the block size relevant in this context should be 64 bytes, enhancing dramatically the performance of the PATCH method as it is shown in Table 5. Indeed, we need only 206 messages to install the rst schedule with 64-byte blocks instead of 374 messages with 32-byte blocks and 104 messages to update the schedule instead of 210 with 32-byte blocks.

Table 5 presents the number of messages required for installing and updating the schedule computed for our illustrative network (see Fig. 6a). We see a dramatic saving for this PATCH method compared to the previous results in Section 3.4. With the method of broadcasting a schedule to all nodes in the network, the savings in term of the number of messages is also signicant. In our example topology, for the two solutions proposed Table 6 shows that using short addresses can save around 45% of messages required to install the schedule with the PATCH method and approximatively 50% of messages needed to update it. In the case of the broadcast method, the saving is lower but still signicant with a gain of 14% for installing the schedule and 17% for updating it.

A cellId Coding the slotOset and channelOset

In order to compress the path descriptions used for the PATCH method, a coding of the tuple {slotOset, channelOset} could be used. Each cell must be uniquely identied by its CellId,

where cells are numbered from slot 0, channel 0 up to channel 15 and then from slot 1, channel RR n°8817 Table 7 presents the number of messages required for installing and updating the schedule computed for our illustrative network (see Fig. 6a). We notice that this simple coding mechanism brings a greater gain compared to the previous results in Section 3.4. Fig. 14 depicts the schedule description using the cellId coding in the context of the broadcasting method. In our example, no saving can be noticed and more generally the cell coding impact seems negligible in this method.

Table 8 demonstrates that using a cellId coding, in addition with the short addresses, can save around 64% of messages required to install the schedule with the Patch method and more than 65% of messages needed to update it.

Shorter Syntax for the PATCH Method

In order to transmit smaller payloads, a more concise syntax for PATCH requests could be used. An example shorter syntax is presented in Fig. 15. The CBOR transcription of this Inria Figure 14: A POST request broadcasting the rst schedule to all nodes in the network using a CellId.

JSON document transmitted in the PATCH request ot node 5 is 26% shorter than the CBOR transcription using the syntax described in [START_REF] Van Der Stok | Patch Method for Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)[END_REF].

PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=2", "v": 2 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=2", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=82", "v": 4 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/LinkType?cellId=82", "v": 1 } ] Figure 15: Example of a PATCH request that installs the schedule on node 5 with a short syntax. Table 9 presents the number of messages required for installing and updating the schedule computed for our illustrative network (see Fig. 6a) with the recommended syntax. This shorter RR n°8817 syntax brings a greater gain compared to the previous results in Section 3.4. In this research report, we describe three methods for the setting up of a schedule in a IEEE802.15.4e TSCH (6TiSCH) network, using a fully standards-based approach: 6LoWPAN [START_REF] Montenegro | Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE[END_REF], CoAP [START_REF] Shelby | The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)[END_REF],

Block [START_REF] Bormann | Block-wise Transfers in CoAP[END_REF], CoMI [START_REF] Van Der Stok | CoAP Management Interface[END_REF] and Patch [START_REF] Van Der Stok | Patch Method for Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)[END_REF]. We compare these methods with OCARI, an ad-hoc protocol. With the current standards, installing a new schedule using IETF standards is very costly in terms of number of packets and latency.

That therefore make three recommendations for reducing the cost. Following these simple recommendations results in 70% less packets for the PATCH method, 15% less packets for the Broadcast method. The recommendation with the highest reduction in number of packets is havaing an association step for the nodes to acquire unique 2-byte addresses.

Appendix "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=0&channelOffset=2", "value": 5 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=0&channelOffset=2", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=1&channelOffset=0", "value": 1 }, { RR n°8817 "op": "replace", "path": "/LinkType?slotOffset=1&channelOffset=0", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=2&channelOffset=2", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=2&channelOffset=2", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=3&channelOffset=0", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=3&channelOffset=0", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=4&channelOffset=2", "value": 9 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=4&channelOffset=2", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=5&channelOffset=0", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/LinkType?slotOffset=5&channelOffset=0", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=6&channelOffset=2", "value": 8 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=6&channelOffset=2", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=7&channelOffset=0", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/LinkType?slotOffset=7&channelOffset=0", "value": 1 } ]

The 1049 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 2 "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=0&channelOffset=1", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=0&channelOffset=1", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=1&channelOffset=1", "value": 10 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/LinkType?slotOffset=1&channelOffset=1", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=2&channelOffset=1", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=2&channelOffset=1", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=3&channelOffset=1", "value": 11 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=3&channelOffset=1", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=4&channelOffset=1", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=4&channelOffset=1", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=5&channelOffset=1", "value": 10 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/LinkType?slotOffset=5&channelOffset=1", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=8&channelOffset=1", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=8&channelOffset=1", "value": 1 } ]

RR n°8817

The 918 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 3. "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=0&channelOffset=0", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=0&channelOffset=0", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=1&channelOffset=2", "value": 6 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/LinkType?slotOffset=1&channelOffset=2", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=2&channelOffset=0", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=2&channelOffset=0", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=3&channelOffset=2", "value": 12 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=3&channelOffset=2", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=4&channelOffset=0", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=4&channelOffset=0", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=5&channelOffset=2", "value": 5 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/LinkType?slotOffset=5&channelOffset=2", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=6&channelOffset=0", "value": 1 Inria }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=6&channelOffset=0", "value": 1 } ]

The 918 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 4. "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=0&channelOffset=2", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=0&channelOffset=2", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=5&channelOffset=2", "value": 4 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/LinkType?slotOffset=5&channelOffset=2", "value": 1 } ]

The 263 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 5. "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=1&channelOffset=2", "value": 4 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=1&channelOffset=2", "value": 1 } ]

The 132 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 6.

RR n°8817

"op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=7&channelOffset=1", "value": 3 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=7&channelOffset=1", "value": 1 } ]

The 132 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 7. "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=6&channelOffset=2", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=6&channelOffset=2", "value": 1 } ]

The 132 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 8. "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=4&channelOffset=2", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=4&channelOffset=2", "value": 1 } ]

The 132 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 9.

B.1.9 PATCH Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 10 PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=1&channelOffset=1", "value": 3 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=1&channelOffset=1", Inria "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=5&channelOffset=1", "value": 3 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/LinkType?slotOffset=5&channelOffset=1", "value": 1 } ]

The 263 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 10. "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=3&channelOffset=1", "value": 3 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=3&channelOffset=1", "value": 1 } ]

The 132 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 11. "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=3&channelOffset=2", "value": 4 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=3&channelOffset=2", "value": 1 } ]

The 132 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 12

RR n°8817

"path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=0&channelOffset=2", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=0&channelOffset=2", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=2&channelOffset=2", "value": 9 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/LinkType?slotOffset=2&channelOffset=2", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=4&channelOffset=2", "value": 8 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=6&channelOffset=2", "value": 13 } ]

The 397 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 2. "replace", "path": "/channelOffset?slotOffset=5&channelOffset=1", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/channelOffset?slotOffset=7&channelOffset=1", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/channelOffset?slotOffset=8&channelOffset=0", "value": 1 } ]

The 208 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 3.

B.2.3 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 4

PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=1&channelOffset=2", "value": 5 }, { Inria "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=3&channelOffset=2", "value": 6 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/channelOffset?slotOffset=5&channelOffset=2", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=5&channelOffset=1", "value": 12 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=7&channelOffset=1", "value": 5 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=7&channelOffset=1", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=8&channelOffset=0", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=8&channelOffset=0", "value": 1 } ]

The 533 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 4. "replace", "path": "/slotOffset?slotOffset=0&channelOffset=2", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=1&channelOffset=2", "value": 4 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/slotOffset?slotOffset=5&channelOffset=2", "value": 7 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/channelOffset?slotOffset=7&channelOffset=2", "value": 1 } ]

The 269 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 5. "replace", "path": "/slotOffset?slotOffset=1&channelOffset=2", "value": 3 } ]

The 67 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 6. The 67 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 9. "replace", "path": "/slotOffset?slotOffset=3&channelOffset=2", "value": 5 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/channelOffset?slotOffset=5&channelOffset=2", "value": 1 } ]

The 136 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 12. B.2.12 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 13 PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?slotOffset=6&channelOffset=2", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?slotOffset=6&channelOffset=2", "value": 1 } ]

The 132 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 13. "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=2", "value": 5 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=2", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=16", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/LinkType?cellId=16", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=34", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=34", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=48", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=48", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=66", "value": 9 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=66", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=80", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/LinkType?cellId=80", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=98", "value": 8 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=98", "value": 2 }, { Inria "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=112", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/LinkType?cellId=112", "value": 1 } ]

B.3 PATCH Requests Installing the First Schedule with cellId Coding

The 729 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 2. "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=1", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=1", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=17", "value": 10 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/LinkType?cellId=17", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=33", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=33", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=49", "value": 11 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=49", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=65", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=65", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", RR n°8817

"path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=81", "value": 10 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/LinkType?cellId=81", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=97", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=97", "value": 1 } ]

The 636 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 3. "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=0", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=0", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=18", "value": 6 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/LinkType?cellId=18", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=32", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=32", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=50", "value": 12 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=50", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=64", Inria "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=64", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=82", "value": 5 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/LinkType?cellId=82", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=96", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=96", "value": 1 } ]

The 636 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 4. "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=2", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=2", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=82", "value": 4 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/LinkType?cellId=82", "value": 1 } ]

The 181 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 5.

RR n°8817

"path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=18", "value": 4 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=18", "value": 1 } ]

The 92 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 6. "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=113", "value": 3 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=113", "value": 1 } ]

The 94 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 7. "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=98", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=98", "value": 1 } ]

The 92 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 8. "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=66", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=66", "value": 1

Inria } ]

The 92 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 9. "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=17", "value": 3 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=17", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=81", "value": 3 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/LinkType?cellId=81", "value": 1 } ]

The 183 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 10. "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=49", "value": 3 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=49", "value": 1 } ]

The 92 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 11. "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=2", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=2", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=34", "value": 9 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/LinkType?cellId=34", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=66", "value": 8 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=66", "value": 13 } ] The 275 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 2. "replace", "path": "/cellId?cellId=81", "value": 82 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/cellId?cellId=112", "value": 113 }, { Inria "op": "replace", "path": "/cellId?cellId=128", "value": 129 } ]

The 132 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 3. "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=18", "value": 5 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=50", "value": 6 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/cellId?cellId=82", "value": 81 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=81", "value": 12 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=113", "value": 5 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=113", "value": 2 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=128", "value": 1 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/linkType?cellId=128", "value": 1 } ]

The 371 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 4. "replace", "path": "/cellId?cellId=2", "value": 18 }, RR n°8817 { "op": "replace", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=18", "value": 4 }, { "op": "replace", "path": "/cellId?cellId=82", "value": 113 } ]

The 132 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 5. "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=2", "v": 2 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=16", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/LinkType?cellId=16", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=34", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=34", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=48", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=48", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=66", "v": 9 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=66", "v": 2 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=80", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/LinkType?cellId=80", "v": 1 Inria }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=98", "v": 8 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=98", "v": 2 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=112", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/LinkType?cellId=112", "v": 1 } ]

The 537 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 2. B.5.2 PATCH Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 3 with a Shorter Syntax PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=1", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=1", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=17", "v": 10 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/LinkType?cellId=17", "v": 2 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=33", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=33", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=49", "v": 11 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=49", "v": 2 }, RR n°8817 { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=65", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=65", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=81", "v": 10 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/LinkType?cellId=81", "v": 2 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=97", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=97", "v": 1 } ]

The 468 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 3. o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=0", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=0", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=18", "v": 6 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/LinkType?cellId=18", "v": 2 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=32", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=32", "v": 1 }, { Inria "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=50", "v": 12 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=50", "v": 2 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=64", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=64", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=82", "v": 5 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/LinkType?cellId=82", "v": 2 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=96", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=96", "v": 1 } ]

The 468 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 4. B.5.4 PATCH Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 5 with a Shorter Syntax PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=2", "v": 2 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=2", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=82", "v": 4 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/LinkType?cellId=82", "v": 1 } ]

RR n°8817

The 133 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 5. B.5.5 PATCH Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 6 with a Shorter Syntax PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=18", "v": 4 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=18", "v": 1 } ]

The 68 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 6. B.5.6 PATCH Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 7 with a Shorter Syntax PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=113", "v": 3 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=113", "v": 1 } ]

The 70 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 7. B.5.7 PATCH Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 8 with a Shorter Syntax PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=98", "v": 2 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=98", "v": 1 } ]

The 68 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 8. Inria "p": "/cellId?cellId=98", "v": 66 } ]

The 32 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 8. The 32 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 10. The 32 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 12.

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1: A Slotframe in an IEEE802.15.4e TSCH network.

Figure 2 :

 2 Figure 2: The 6TiSCH Protocol Stack.

Figure 3 :

 3 Figure 3: Format of a MAC frame.

+Figure 4 :Figure 5 :

 45 Figure 4: Format of a CoAP option.

Figure 6 :

 6 Figure 6: The illustrative example.

Figure 7 :

 7 Figure 7: Cycle provided by the ad hoc solution

Fig. 8

 8 Fig. 8 describes a transcription of a POST request in CoAP to set the value 3 for the nodeAddress eld of the cell dened by slotOset = 3 and channelOset = 1.

Figure 8 :

 8 Figure 8: A POST request in CoAP addressing the nodeAddress value of a cell.

Fig. 10

 10 Fig.10depicts the POST request with a JSON document describing the rst schedule of our example. This request is broadcast to all nodes of the network. The length of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing our schedule is 149 bytes. This CBOR transcription is divided into 5 fragments of 32 bytes, hence Bsched = 5. In our example topology, the number of parents broadcasting the schedule is P = 4 (node 1, 2, 3, 4) and the sum of depths of nodes is u =sink Depth(u) = 19. For this rst schedule, as all nodes just joined the network δ P = 1. Finally, msg(Broadcast) = 4 • 5 + 19 + 1 • 4 = 43.

Figure 10 :

 10 Figure 10: A POST request broadcasting the rst schedule to all nodes in the network.

Fig. 11

 11 Fig. 11 depicts the same POST request for the second schedule of our illustrative example.

(

  broadcast the whole schedule or broadcast a DIFF schedule), we obtain msg(Broadcast) = 4 • Bsched + 19 + 1 • 4 = 35 messages with Bsched = 3 for the srt schedule. For updating the schedule with the presence of node 13, we obtain msg(Broadcast) = 4 • Bsched + 21 + 1 • 4 = 37 messages with Bsched = 3.

B. 1 . 3 PATCH

 13 Request for Installing the Schedule on node 4 PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op":

B. 1 . 4 PATCH

 14 Request for Installing the Schedule on node 5 PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op":

B. 1 . 5 PATCH

 15 Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 6 PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op":

B. 1 . 6 PATCH

 16 Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 7 PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ {

B. 1 . 8 PATCH

 18 Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 9 PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op":

B. 1 .

 1 10 PATCH Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 11 PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op":

B. 1 .

 1 11 PATCH Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 12 PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op":

B. 2 . 2 PATCH

 22 Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 3 PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op":

B. 2 . 4 PATCH

 24 Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 5 PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op":

B. 2 . 5 PATCH

 25 Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 6 PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op":

Inria B. 2 . 9 PATCH

 29 Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 10 PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op": "replace", "path": "/channelOffset?slotOffset=5&channelOffset=1", "value": 2 } ] The 70 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 10. B.2.10 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 11 The 0 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 11. B.2.11 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 12 PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op":

B. 3 . 1 PATCH

 31 Request for Install the Schedule on Node 2 with cellId Coding PATCH RR n°8817 coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op":

B. 3 . 2 PATCH

 32 Request for Install the Schedule on Node 3 with cellId Coding PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op":

B. 3

 3 .3 PATCH Request for Install the Schedule on Node 4 with cellId Coding PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op":

B. 3 . 4 PATCH

 34 Request for Install the Schedule on Node 5 with cellId Coding PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op":

B. 3 . 5 PATCH

 35 Request for Install the Schedule on Node 6 with cellId Coding PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op": "replace",

B. 3 . 6 PATCH

 36 Request for Install the Schedule on Node 7 with cellId Coding PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op":

B. 3 . 7 PATCH

 37 Request for Install the Schedule on Node 8 with cellId Coding PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op":

B. 3 . 8 PATCH

 38 Request for Install the Schedule on Node 9 with cellId Coding PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op":

B. 3 . 9 PATCH

 39 Request for Install the Schedule on Node 10 with cellId Coding PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op":

B. 3 .

 3 10 PATCH Request for Install the Schedule on Node 11 with cellId Coding PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op":

B. 4 . 2 PATCH

 42 Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 3 with cellId Coding PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op":

B. 4 . 3 PATCH

 43 Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 4 with cellId Coding PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op":

B. 4 . 4 PATCH

 44 Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 5 with cellId Coding PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "op":

B. 5 . 3 PATCH

 53 Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 4 with a Shorter Syntax PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "

B. 6 .

 6 10 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 11 with a Shorter Syntax The 0 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 11. B.6.11 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 12 with a Shorter Syntax PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "o": "rpl", "p": "/cellId?cellId=50", "v": 81 } ]

  B.2.8 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 9 . . . . . . . . . . . 34 B.2.9 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 10 . . . . . . . . . . 35 B.2.10 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 11 . . . . . . . . . . 35 B.2.11 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 12 . . . . . . . . . . 35 B.2.12 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 13 . . . . . . . . . . 35 B.3 PATCH Requests Installing the First Schedule with cellId Coding . . . . . . . . . 35 B.3.1 PATCH Request for Install the Schedule on Node 2 with cellId Coding . . 35 B.3.2 PATCH Request for Install the Schedule on Node 3 with cellId Coding . . 37 B.3.3 PATCH Request for Install the Schedule on Node 4 with cellId Coding . . 38 B.3.4 PATCH Request for Install the Schedule on Node 5 with cellId Coding . . 39 B.3.5 PATCH Request for Install the Schedule on Node 6 with cellId Coding . . 39 B.3.6 PATCH Request for Install the Schedule on Node 7 with cellId Coding . . 40 B.3.7 PATCH Request for Install the Schedule on Node 8 with cellId Coding . . 40 B.3.8 PATCH Request for Install the Schedule on Node 9 with cellId Coding . . 40 B.3.9 PATCH Request for Install the Schedule on Node 10 with cellId Coding . 41 B.3.10 PATCH Request for Install the Schedule on Node 11 with cellId Coding . 41 B.3.11 PATCH Request for Install the Schedule on Node 12 with cellId Coding . 41 B.4 PATCH Requests Installing the Second Schedule with cellID Coding . . . . . . . 42 B.4.1 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 2 with cellId Coding 42 PATCH Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 8 with a Shorter Syntax 50 B.5.8 PATCH Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 9 with a Shorter Syntax 51 B.5.9 PATCH Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 10 with a Shorter Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 B.5.10 PATCH Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 11 with a Shorter Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 B.5.11 PATCH Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 12 with a Shorter Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 B.6 PATCH Requests for Installing the Second Schedule with a Shorter Syntax . . . 52 B.6.1 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 2 with a Shorter Syntax 52 B.6.2 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 3 with a Shorter Syntax 53 B.6.3 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 4 with a Shorter Syntax 53 Inria The Cost of Installing a 6TiSCH Schedule using CoAP B.6.4 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 5 with a Shorter Syntax B.6.5 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 6 with a Shorter Syntax B.6.6 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 7 with a Shorter Syntax B.6.7 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 8 with a Shorter Syntax B.6.8 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 9 with a Shorter Syntax B.6.9 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 10 with a Shorter Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.6.10 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 11 with a Shorter Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.6.11 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 12 with a Shorter Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.6.12 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 13 with a Shorter Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B.4.2 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 3 with cellId Coding 42 B.4.3 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 4 with cellId Coding 43 B.4.4 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 5 with cellId Coding 43 B.4.5 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 6 with cellId Coding 44 B.4.6 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 7 with cellId Coding 44 B.4.7 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 8 with cellId Coding 44 B.4.8 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 9 with cellId Coding 45 B.4.9 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 10 with cellId Coding 45 B.4.10 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 11 with cellId Coding 45 B.4.11 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 12 with cellId Coding 45 B.4.12 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 13 with cellId Coding 45 B.5 PATCH Requests for Installing the First Schedule with a Shorter Syntax . . . . . 46 B.5.1 PATCH Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 2 with a Shorter Syntax 46 B.5.2 PATCH Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 3 with a Shorter Syntax 47 B.5.3 PATCH Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 4 with a Shorter Syntax 48 B.5.4 PATCH Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 5 with a Shorter Syntax 49 B.5.5 PATCH Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 6 with a Shorter Syntax 50 B.5.6 PATCH Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 7 with a Shorter Syntax 50 B.5.7

  for a CoAP option.

	Octests: 2 Frame Control	1 Seq Num	0/2 Dest. PAN Id.	0/2/8 Dest. Address Addressing elds 0/2 Source PAN Id. MHR	0/2/8 Source Address	0/5/6/10/14 Auxiliary Security Header	variable Frame Payload MAC Payload	2 FCS MFR

Table 1 :

 1 Payloads.

	IEEE802.15.4e TSCH	Frame Control 2	Seq Num 1	Dest PAN 2	Dest @ 8	Src @ 8	Aux Sec Header 2	MIC 4	Payload 98	FCS 2
	6loWPAN -IP	LOWPAN_IPHC 2	Hop limit 1	Src @ 8	Dest @ 8			Payload 79
	6loWPAN -UDP	LOWPAN_NHC 1	Port src + dest 1			Payload 77
	COAP without frag	Header 4	URI 11	Payload marker 1			Payload without block 61
	COAP with ≤ 16 frag COAP with ≤ 4096 frag	Header 4 4	URI 11 11	Option delta + Length 1 1	Option Delta extended 1 1	Option value 1 2	Payload marker 1 1		Payload with block 32 32
	header (AS) is coded with 2 bytes and the Message Integrity Code (MIC) is coded with 4 bytes.

Table 2 :

 2 Total number of messages required for installing and updating the schedules with the

	Naive method.
	Node 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13	without node 13 Assignations N f ield Messages 8 4 64 9 4 72 7 4 56 2 4 32 1 4 16 1 4 16 1 4 16 1 4 16 2 4 32 1 4 16 1 4 16 ---	with node 13 Assignations * N f ield Messages 2*2 + 2*1 8 + 4 3*1 6 3*1 + 2*4 6 + 16 2*2 16 1*1 4 1*1 4 1*1 4 1*1 4 1*1 4 0 0 1*2 8 1*4 16
	Total	-	-	352	-	100

Table 3 :

 3 Total number of messages required for installing and updating the schedules with the

	PATCH method.
	Node 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13	without node 13 CBOR bytes Blocks Messages 1049 33 66 918 29 58 918 29 58 263 9 36 132 5 20 132 5 20 132 5 20 132 5 20 263 9 36 132 5 20 132 5 20 ---	with node 13 CBOR bytes Blocks Messages 397 13 26 208 7 14 533 17 34 269 9 36 67 3 12 70 3 12 67 3 12 67 3 12 70 3 12 0 0 0 136 5 20 132 5 20
	Total	-	-	374	-	-	210

Table 4 :

 4 Number of messages needed to install or update schedules.

	Nmsg(Adhoc) Nmsg(Naive) Nmsg(Patch) Nmsg(Broadcast)	install rst schedule udapte 12 12 352 100 374 206 43 45
		Inria

Table 5 :

 5 Total number of messages required for installing and updating the schedules with the

	PATCH method.
	Node 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13	without node 13 CBOR bytes Blocks Messages 1049 17 34 918 15 30 918 15 30 263 5 20 132 3 12 132 3 12 132 3 12 132 3 12 263 5 20 132 3 12 132 3 12 ---	with node 13 CBOR bytes Blocks Messages 397 7 14 208 4 8 533 9 18 269 5 20 67 1 4 70 1 4 67 1 4 67 1 4 70 1 4 0 0 0 136 3 12 132 3 12
	Total	-	-	206	-	-	104

Table 6 :

 6 Number of messages needed to install or update schedules using short addresses at This is equivalent to identifying each cell by a sequence number equal to SlotOf f set * 16 + ChannelOf f set. This sequence number is coded on two bytes, where the 4 least signicant bits are used to code the ChannelOf f set and the remaining 12 bits code the SlotOf f set, enabling a maximum of 4096 slots in the SlotFrame.

	MAC layer.
	Nmsg(Adhoc) Nmsg(Naive) Nmsg(Patch) Nmsg(Broadcast)	install rst schedule udapte 12 12 352 100 206 104 35 37
	0 up to channel 15.

Table 7 :

 7 Total number of messages required for installing and updating the schedules with the PATCH method using a cellId.

	Node 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13	without node 13 CBOR bytes Blocks Messages 729 12 24 636 10 20 636 10 20 181 3 12 92 2 8 92 2 8 92 2 8 92 2 8 183 3 12 92 2 8 92 2 8 ---	with node 13 CBOR bytes Blocks Messages 275 5 10 132 3 6 371 6 12 132 3 12 44 1 4 45 1 4 44 1 4 44 1 4 44 1 4 0 0 0 44 1 4 92 2 8
	Total	-	-	136	-	-	72

Table 8 :

 8 Number of messages needed to install or update schedules.

	Nmsg(Adhoc) Nmsg(Naive) Nmsg(Patch) Nmsg(Broadcast)	install rst schedule udapte 12 12 352 100 136 72 35 37

Table 9 :

 9 Total number of messages required for installing and updating the schedules with the

	PATCH method.
	Node 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13	without node 13 CBOR bytes Blocks Messages 537 9 18 468 8 16 468 8 16 133 3 12 68 1 4 70 1 4 68 1 4 68 1 4 135 3 12 68 1 4 68 1 4 ---	with node 13 CBOR bytes Blocks Messages 203 4 96 2 275 5 10 96 2 32 1 33 1 32 1 32 1 32 1 0 0 32 1 68 1
	Total	-	-	98	-	-	58

Table 10

 10 shows that using a short syntax in PATCH requests, in addition with the two previous recommendations, saves 74% of messages required to install the schedule with the PATCH method, and around 72% of messages needed to update it.

Table 10 :

 10 Number of messages needed to install or update schedules.

	Nmsg(Adhoc) Nmsg(Naive) Nmsg(Patch) Nmsg(Broadcast)	install rst schedule udapte 12 12 352 100 98 58 35 37

  The 70 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 7.

	B.2.6 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 7
	PATCH
	coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList
	[
	{
	"op":	"replace",
	"path": "/channelOffset?slotOffset=7&channelOffset=1",
	"value": 2
	}
	]
	B.2.7 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 8
	PATCH
	coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList
	[
	{
	"op":	"replace",
	"path": "/slotOffset?slotOffset=6&channelOffset=2",
	"value": 4
	}
	]
	The 67 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch
	for update the schedule on node 8.
	B.2.8 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 9
	PATCH
	coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList
	[
	{
	"op":	"replace",
	"path": "/slotOffset?slotOffset=4&channelOffset=2",
	"value": 2
	}
	]

  The 44 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 6.The 44 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 10. B.4.10 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 11 with cellId CodingThe 0 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 11.The 92 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 13.

	B.4.8 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 9 with cellId Coding
	PATCH
	coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList
	[	{	"op": "path": "/cellId?cellId=66", "replace", "value": 34 B.5 PATCH Requests for Installing the First Schedule with a Shorter Syntax
	]	}	B.5.1 PATCH Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 2 with a Shorter Syntax
	PATCH The 44 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ for update the schedule on node 9. {
				"o": "rpl",
	"p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=2", B.4.9 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 10 with cellId Coding "v": 5
	B.4.5 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 6 with cellId Coding }, coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList PATCH {
	[ ]	{ }	PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList "op": "replace", [ "path": "/cellId?cellId=81", { "op": "value": 82 "replace", "path": "/cellId?cellId=18", "value": 50
			}
			]
			B.4.6 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 7 with cellId Coding
	PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList B.4.11 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 12 with cellId Coding
	[ coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList PATCH { "op": "replace", [ "path": "/cellId?cellId=113", { "value": 114 "op": "replace", } "path": "/cellId?cellId=50", ] "value": 81
		}
	] for update the schedule on node 12. The 45 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch The 44 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 7.
	B.4.7 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 8 with cellId Coding B.4.12 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 13 with cellId Coding
	PATCH		PATCH
	coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList
	[		[
		{	{
			"op":	"op": "replace", "replace",
			"path": "/cellId?cellId=98", "path": "/nodeAddress?cellId=98",
			"value": 66 "value": 2
		},	}
		{	]
			"op":	"replace",
			"path": "/linkType?cellId=98",
	]	}	"value": 1 The 44 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 8.
	RR n°8817	Inria

  B.6.8 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 9 with a Shorter Syntax The 32 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 9. B.6.9 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 10 with a Shorter

	PATCH
	coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList
	[
	{
	"o": "rpl",
	"p": "/cellId?cellId=66",
	"v": 34
	}
	]
	Syntax
	PATCH
	coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList
	[
	{
	"o": "rpl",
	"p": "/cellId?cellId=81",
	"v": 82
	}
	]

RR n°8817

InriaRESEARCH CENTRE PARIS -ROCQUENCOURT Domaine de Voluceau, -Rocquencourt B.P. 105 -78153 Le Chesnay Cedex Publisher Inria Domaine de Voluceau -Rocquencourt BP 105 -78153 Le Chesnay Cedex inria.fr ISSN 0249-6399

B.5.8 PATCH Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 9 with a Shorter Syntax PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=66", "v": 2 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=66", "v": 1 } ]

The 68 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 9. B.5.9 PATCH Request for Installing the Schedule on Node 10 with a Shorter Syntax PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=17", "v": 3 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=17", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=81", "v": 3 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/LinkType?cellId=81", "v": 1 } ]

The 135 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for install the schedule on node 10. "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=2", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=34", "v": 9 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/LinkType?cellId=34", "v": 2 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=66", "v": 8 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=66", "v": 13 } ]

The 203 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 2.

Inria

The "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=50", "v": 6 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/cellId?cellId=82", "v": 81 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=81", "v": 12 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=113", "v": 5 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=113", "v": 2 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=128", "v": 1 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/linkType?cellId=128", "v": 1 } ]

RR n°8817

The 275 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 4. B.6.4 PATCH Request for Updating the Schedule on Node 5 with a Shorter Syntax PATCH coap://<ip>:5683/mg/6t/cellList [ { "o": "rpl", "p": "/cellId?cellId=2", "v": 18 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/nodeAddress?cellId=18", "v": 4 }, { "o": "rpl", "p": "/cellId?cellId=82", "v": 113 } ]

The 96 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 5. The 68 bytes of the CBOR transcription of the JSON document describing the patch for update the schedule on node 13.