Re: [6tisch] #40 (minimal): Ralph's INT AREA review on minimal

I had a hard time mapping from the points in my review to the issues tracked in bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal/issues/

In particular, I don't see where these comments were addressed:

1. Goals and requirements are unclear

The requirements for this document are unclear to me.  Exactly what
services would a "minimal mode of operation" provide?  The Abstract and
most of the document talks about the operation of an IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH
network, yet the title of the document is "Minimal 6TiSCH Configuration".
Does a network that follows these rules provide an L2 IEEE 802.15.4
service, an IPv6 6TiSCH service, ???

Related to this question, does this document describe "a minimal set of
rules to operate an IEEE802.15.4 ...] TSCH network" or a "minimal mode of
operation" (both text snippets from the Abstract).

2. Requirement for RPL is ill-advised

This document seems to be focused on IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH operational
parameters.  Yet, it calls for the use of RPL, which seems to me to be a
highly undesirable entangling of protocols at different layers of the
protocol stack.  IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH is expected to be used in networks
that don't use RPL.

My understanding of the document is that RPL is assumed to be in use
because it is required in a 6TiSCH network.  RPL is then used to generate
the Join Priority through the DAGRank function as specified in section
7.2.  The use of RPL implies to me the configuration and operation of a
full IPv6 stack, which hardly seems like a minimal mode of operation for
IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH.

I looked at draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-13, and I see that there are no changes to the abstract or the introduction.  As I read that text, this document is intended to give minimal operational parameters for IEEE802.15.4 TSCH.  However, the title of the document is "Minimal 6TiSCH Configuration" and the content goes far beyond the parameters needed to run IEEE802.15.4 TSCH.  As an aside, I don't see any mention of TiSCH or 6TiSCH in the document, other than in the title.

I really need to get clarity on the purpose and scope of the document before I can continue my re-review.

- Ralph

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:20 AM 11/30/15, 6tisch issue tracker <trac+6tisch@tools.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> #40: Ralph's INT AREA review on minimal
> 
> 
> Comment (by pthubert@cisco.com):
> 
> Xavi addressed comments one by one, tracked under bitbucket as
> https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal/issues/
> All issues are solved but the intended status that we will track with a
> separate ticket
> 
> --
> -----------------------------------+------------------------------------
> Reporter:  pthubert@cisco.com     |       Owner:  xvilajosana@gmail.com
>    Type:  defect                 |      Status:  new
> Priority:  major                  |   Milestone:  milestone1
> Component:  minimal                |     Version:  1.0
> Severity:  Submitted WG Document  |  Resolution:
> Keywords:                         |
> -----------------------------------+------------------------------------
> 
> Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6tisch/trac/ticket/40#comment:1>
> 6tisch <https://tools.ietf.org/6tisch/>
> IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list
> 6tisch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch

Re: [6tisch] #40 (minimal): Ralph's INT AREA review on minimal

Attachment: signature.asc