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

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

Following up on my previous e-mail, it's still not clear to me whether this document is intended to describe minimal operation of IEEE802.15.4 or minimal IPv6-over-IEEE802.15.4-TSCH.  The title is "Minimal 6TiSCH Configuration", but the first sentence of the abstract is "This document describes the minimal set of rules to operate an IEEE 802.15.4 Timeslotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) network."  "6TiSCH" is not used as the name of a protocol or specification anywhere else in the document.

- Ralph

> On Dec 1, 2015, at 8:03 AM 12/1/15, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hello Ralph:
> 
> I understand that the 6TiSCH architecture, which describes as an informational the general topologies, the use of RPL and 6LoWPAN, and positions the 6BBR as well, is what you call b). One intent was to back the minimal document with the architecture document so we would not have to place that informational background in the standard.
> 
> Minimal operating on 802.15.4, it works with the existing 6LoWPAN HD and ND, and does not need to change or parametrize them to operate as a NBMA mesh. A product that implements minimal will beneficiate from the improvements coming from the work in progress at 6lo to build a larger subnet and save energy with an improved compression. Do we need text to say that?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Pascal
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: 6tisch [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ralph Droms
>> Sent: lundi 30 novembre 2015 22:48
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Cc: Haberman Brian <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [6tisch] #41 (minimal): intended status for draft minimal
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 12:57 PM 11/30/15, Brian Haberman
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Kris,
>>> 
>>> On 11/30/15 12:47 PM, Kris Pister wrote:
>>>> are most "ipv6-over-foo" documents standards track, or something else?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes, the ipv6-over-foo documents are standards track. It should be
>>> noted that those drafts specifically describe the detailed operation
>>> of the
>>> IPv6 stack for the foo physical layer. The minimal document seems to
>>> be more of a compilation of "set X to Y", where X is already defined
>>> in a different specification.
>>> 
>>> Your question does raise an interesting point. Is this document
>>> supposed to be the 802.15.4e equivalent of RFC 2464? It certainly
>>> doesn't read that way to me.
>> 
>> I think Brian's observation points to an important decision that the WG needs to
>> make about this document.  Is the document intended to be:
>> 
>> (a) a supplement to an "IP-over-6TiSCH" document, that gives specific
>> operational parameters for minimal operation of the IP-over-6TiSCH protocol
>> suite; or
>> (b) a standalone document that explicitly describes the specific use of all the
>> protocols required for minimal operation of 6TiSCH
>> 
>> In my opinion, the document is currently more (a) than (b).  However, (a)
>> requires a completed IP-over-6TiSCH document.
>> 
>> - Ralph
>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Brian
>>> 
>>>> ksjp
>>>> 
>>>> On 11/30/2015 9:43 AM, 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
>>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 6tisch mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 6tisch mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>