[6tisch] Minutes Webex 29 August 2014, 6TiSCH WG

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Note: timestamps in PDT.

Connection details

  *   Webex: https://ciscosales.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?ED=219615007&UID=481905242&PW=NZTRkNDAwOTE1&RT=MiMyMw%3D%3D
  *   Etherpad: http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/6tisch?useMonospaceFont=true
  *   Topic: 6TiSCH Weekly
  *   Time: 8:00 am, Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco, GMT-07:00)
  *   Meeting Number: 206 802 913
  *   Meeting Password: sixtus
  *   CCM: [phone]x206802913

Resources

  *   Webex recording: https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/lsr.php?RCID=d0697433e3ae46dfbfe43173a3b74b80
  *   Wiki: https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/meetings/wiki/140829_webex
  *   Slides: https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/meetings/src/master/140829_webex/slides_140829_webex.ppt

Taking notes (using Etherpad)

  1.  Xavi Vilajosana

Present (template)

  1.  Michael Richardson
  2.  Ariton Xhafa
  3.  Pascal Thubert
  4.  Joaquin Cabezas
  5.  Xavi Vilajosana
  6.  Raghuram Sudhaakar
  7.  Diego Dujovne
  8.  Kazushi Muraoka
  9.  Maria Rita Palattella
  10. Pat Kinney
  11. Pouria Zand
  12. Rene Struik
  13. Guillaume Gaillard
  14. Badis Djamaa
  15. Giuseppe Piro
  16. Martin Turon

===== TEMPLATE =====

Action Items

  *   POIPOI

Agenda

  *   Administrivia [3min]
     *   Approval agenda
     *   Approval minutes last call
     *   Reboot of this and security meetings
  *   Overview of Discussions on language in drafts and meetings [10min]
  *   Review process for draft to be submitted to IESG this year [20min]
  *   Share on the Flow Label discussion [20min]
  *   AOB [1min]

Minutes

·        [08.05] Meeting starts

     *   Meeting starts.
     *   Thomas is not present.
     *   recording started 8:07

·        [08.07] Administrivia [7min]

     *   Minutes of the last call are approved. No concerns are raised.
     *   Agenda is approved. No concerns are raised.
     *   Question: Is ok to have meetings bi-weekly? Yes concensus on that.

o   Michael Richardson: Security meetings. Reboot them. Not on Monday this time.

§  Need feedback from the documents. Need people to read and to discuss starting from the documents.

§  Introduce high level description of the security architecture on the Architecture draft.

§  this will require consensus from the Group. ML.

*ACTION: send a request to the ML to restart the Security conference calls. Doodle is needed as the previous time does not work for some of the participants.

Rene: We had list of open issues: Michael Richardson: this are implementation issues. Rene: not sure about that.

o   Michael Richardson: I see all this issues as protocol (design) issues not architecture issues. Are those issues architectural questions?

     *   Rene: I think they are.
     *   Michael Richardson: If so, you need to propose some improvements to the architecture to improve the current document.
     *   Rene Struik: Is the architecture describing the problem statement?
     *   Michael Richardson: To be discussed in the new calls.
     *   Pascal: If there are other topics to be discussed, parallel calls can be setup during the week.

·        [08.15] Overview of Discussions on language in drafts and meetings [10min]

     *   Need to check english in all drafts. Clean up language and technical aspects before submitting to the IESG.
     *   WG chairs will help on finding the most technical and grammatical sentences in drafts if this is required by IESG or reviewers.
     *   It would really be good to have draft reviews by native english speakers.

·        [08.??] Review process for draft to be submitted to IESG this year [20min]

  *   Yang data model 6top, reviewed during IETF meeting by YANG Model people.

·        Security draft, will require some more time.

     *   Michael Richardson: We need to get the architecture text reviewed.
     *   Pascal Thubert: the current document can be the base of the document to be submitted to review?
     *   Michael Richardson: will need 10 days or more to get it ready. *3 documents to be shipped this year:
        *   minimal:
        *   6top:
        *   coap draft:

o   review english piece of the drafts.

ACTION: to call to the ML for draft reviewers.

·        Rene Struik: volunters to the Minimal draft. Only language. Not technical. 6top interface draft: Pat Kinney volunteers to review Coap draft: to call to the ML.

·        [08.??] Share on the Flow Label discussion [20min]

     *   hop by hop header requires 8 bytes
     *   draft flow label uses the flow label to carry the same information as the hop by hop header. Saves 5 bytes.
     *   has a dependency on 6MAN.
     *   Michael Richardson: the draft is not being adopted yet. There was consensus that an exception for the Flow Label needs to be done for the LLN. As having zero there is a waste of space. It is not clear if the proposed flow label draft is the solution or use some sort of compression using 6lowpan for the hop-by-hop header.
     *   The previous Flow Label RFC, enabled us to use the flow label to place a number which identifies a flow. This was done in ISA100. And we want to do the same for 6tisch.
     *   The only way to be used now (the flow label) is using a random which makes it unusable to identify flows.
     *   Michael Richardson: any router observing a flow label with value 0 can select a new value. We want a rule so a packet arriving to an LLN can set it to zero.
     *   The 6lowpan method to compress the h-b-h header is more flexible that using the flow label and in addition we can use the flow label for other things.
     *   We want something to setup the interop test. In a 6tisch network the h-b-h does not exists.
     *   Michael Richardson: 6lo compresses the flow label. otherwise it is represented in 20bits. There is no consensus on weather using the flow label or not. There is appaty. We need technical arguments. *Pascal: whatever decision we take. What do we do in november. What minimal draft should say w.r.t to the use of the hop-by-hop option or flow label?

·        [09.06] AOB [7min]

     *   NO other B.
     *   Diego. Asks about Hawaii meeting IETF.
     *   Most probably yes but most of people will not attend. Short meeting. *
  *   [09.10] Meeting ends