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

Michael Richardson <> Fri, 21 February 2020 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E3EE1200E0; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:21:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.501
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1WPq9LJKCgfV; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:21:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:7e00::3d:b000]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A31B3120086; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:21:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C9E11F458; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 20:21:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id 1F0D41A2BAC; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 21:21:28 +0100 (CET)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To:, Alvaro Retana <>
cc:, Pascal Thubert <>, The IESG <>,
In-reply-to: <>
References: <> <29710.1582208163@dooku> <>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Retana <> message dated "Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:32:38 -0600."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 15:21:28 -0500
Message-ID: <20565.1582316488@dooku>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 20:21:41 -0000

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 <> 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 <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-