mqtt-sn — archive

RE: Packet Type Field Change

From: Davide Lenzarini
To: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2023 08:53:00 -0000

Great catch Simon! I agree with your approach as consistent with MQTT5. I am anyway scared about the fact that the Protocol Version in CONNECT is represented over 1 byte and in PUBLISH-1 is represented over 2 bits. I propose the following 2 options to have a future-proof solution: Option 1 (Packet type 2 bits flag extension): 00 means MQTT-SN v1.2 01 means MQTT-SN v2 10 is reserved 11 means there is a following dedicated byte providing the Protocol Version Option 2 (Packet type refactoring) PUBLISH 0x0C (MQTT-SN v2) PUBLISHv1_2 0x1E (MQTT-SN v1.2) Bye Davide From: Simon Johnson <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2023 11:31 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Ian Craggs <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Davide Lenzarini <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Packet Type Field Change **** This is an EXTERNAL email. It was sent from outside of u-blox. **** ERRATUM: That should be bits 7 & 6 for the flags and 5 - 0 for packet type On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 at 10:13, Simon Johnson < [email protected] > wrote: Good morning folks, I have been working with PUBLISH -1 in v2. I have found a flaw with the new packet type layouts. Presently you can PUBLISH -1 without a session, and it is the SESSION that determines the protocol version you have decided to use. Without a session, the GATEWAY has no mechanism to determine the version of the PUBLISH packet to use to decode it. So to maintain the ability for a GW to support both protocol versions, we must have a mechanism in the PUBLISH packet to note protocol version WITHOUT adding any further bytes. I was looking, the packet type field seems to be a great chance to squeeze some more space out of - in a similar fashion to tt5, so we coolocate a generic flags field in bits 1 & 0, using 6 bits of space (7-2) for packet type (64 available types - we currently use ~30) so plenty of growing room - then the 2 new flags can be used for flags on the message without needing a new flags field. In the case of PUBLISH this can be protocol version, but also it could be used for a few other types specifying and using only 1 or 2 flags saving space elsewhere. I feel this is a fundamental enough issue to warrant this change - and give us further flexibility for saving space elsewhere. I still havn't gained access to the ticketing system, but will press OASIS next week and raise a ticket when I can. I'm happy to create a WD version (25) with just this change applied to all the message types this week for review. Further, Davide, I have made the changes to the doc RE: network connection and will submit WD 24 this coming week. Best, Si