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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 21 February 2020 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E3EE1200E0; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:21:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1WPq9LJKCgfV; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:21:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (minerva.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2a01:7e00::3d:b000]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A31B3120086; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:21:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (unknown [209.171.88.160]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C9E11F458; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 20:21:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 1F0D41A2BAC; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 21:21:28 +0100 (CET)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: 6tisch@ietf.org, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
cc: 6tisch-chairs@ietf.org, Pascal Thubert <pthubert@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <CAMMESswxQZ1AVHANoRT1R-VgKw_8-6DqmXJCfVG-=HZ5gMErQw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <158215393967.17661.15214952317681663416.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <29710.1582208163@dooku> <CAMMESswxQZ1AVHANoRT1R-VgKw_8-6DqmXJCfVG-=HZ5gMErQw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> 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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/1x8vWueTsj1l8g5UNzhEkXJSn_U>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
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" <6tisch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6tisch/>
List-Post: <mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=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 <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> 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 <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-