Re: [6tisch] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

WG: what do you think?

    mcr> The goal of this document is to provide a container for a number of
    mcr> somewhat unrelated things, and do this in a on-the-wire efficient
    mcr> way. Otherwise we'd split it up into multiple TLV.

Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > The text you propose helps a little, but it makes me uneasy that a
    > significant part of the (1!) structure defined in a Standards Track
    > document is experimental.  Also, the fact that the WG does not in
    > general have a clear prescription and that there's work to be done in
    > RPL, makes the text sound speculative.

    > It would be more appropriate (again, for a Standards Track document) to
    > simply declare the specific use and determination of the different
    > priorities as out of scope (vs the subject of future research).  You
    > might still want to include a separate non-normative section (or an
    > appendix) to deal with "future work", but having that discussion while
    > the fields are being specified does not seem right to me.

I understand your point.
I think that it's not much different than BGP4's MED attribute.
I think that 80% of operators still have no idea how to set it :-)

We don't know how to *set* the value, but we *do* know how to interpret
different values.


--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-