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

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On February 20, 2020 at 9:16:06 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:

...
> Alvaro Retana via Datatracker wrote:
> > I am balloting DISCUSS because the relationship between this document
> > and RPL parent selection is not clear. I expect that the issues I
> > point at will be easy to address, either by clarifying the text or my
> > potential confusion.
>
> > It is not clear to me what is the "RPL status" of an enrolled node.
> > IOW, is an enrolled node to be considered one that has joined a DODAG
> > already? This is then causing some confusion on how RPL parent
> > selection and the new structure defined here are related. More
> > details/questions below.
...

> I would say that we not in general have a clear prescription, and that there
> will be quality of implementation differences followed by a BCP once people
> figure this out in the field. Additionally, there is work yet to do in RPL
> to configure some of these things correctly, but this is the first document
> to come forward to the IESG, and while draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority-00
> was written to accomodate the enrollment part of things, there are not yet
> similar drafts to explain the other values.
>
> The goal of this document is to provide a container for a number of somewhat
> unrelated things, and do this in a on-the-wire efficient way. Otherwise we'd
> split it up into multiple TLV.


Michael:

Hi!

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.

Thanks!

Alvaro.