Re: [6tisch] #41 (minimal): intended status for draft minimal

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Pascal,

On 11/30/15 12:43 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Dear all:
> 
> I created that issue to follow up on whether standard track is really the intention for this document or, as Suresh and Brian suggest, we would explore an alternative, BCP or informational.
> At the call, there was a sense that informational was not the right path, and that std track was slightly preferred. If that is so, we must now make the case in the shepherd writeup and defend it in front of the IESG. I would like that we explorein depth the pros and cons of each, and we really want all the arguments on the table.
> 
> What I have so far:
> 
> 1) minimal is a base that we expect will operate in many networks since it appears to be needed to build the next stage where dedicated time slots can be negotiated. Apparently this pleads against informational
> 2) minimal is a recommendation for device builders, as opposed to network admin. Apparently this pleads for std track rather than BCP

BCP is not limited to network administration. They are also applicable
to implementers. RFCs 6881 and 7696 are examples of BCPs aimed at
implementers.

The key is whether you expect to promote this document from PS to IS.

Regards,
Brian

> 3) minimal defines a way to compute the Rank that cannot be obtained with a simple parameter in an existing implementation. The operation SHOULD be programmed in the device for interoperation and that operation is not specified in a preexisting RFC. This pleads for std track
> 
> What else?
> 
> Pascal
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: 6tisch issue tracker [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: lundi 30 novembre 2015 13:29
>> To: [e-mail]; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [6tisch] #41 (minimal): intended status for draft minimal (was:
>> internded status for draft minimal)
>>
>> #41: intended status for draft minimal
>>
>>
>> --
>> -----------------------------------+------------------------------------
>>  Reporter:  [e-mail]     |       Owner:  [e-mail]
>>      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/41#comment:2>
>> 6tisch <https://tools.ietf.org/6tisch/>
>> IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>