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

Alvaro Retana <> Thu, 20 February 2020 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 368E612002E; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:32:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 67yPmOPgb8mM; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:32:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95552120073; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:32:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id g19so34881843eds.11; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:32:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3IM0fltomgitHoHxO6MffEzDeUD7WsX6pQcmsRtVIig=; b=URbzFOgFJKux2bUIC+7U0dG7nCyamNzC4ZSrHKiYv0AE17Kty6g5vko1s6q/eDjrwP JxmYIw2Jl9KQ865uOIPoP7Nq2ZQGcDMcNj+FllxyLt7sVWrcUPpOTNiTLvoQqjv9FtBe dKIpH/CCFhC9fnWQ8Qj62A0N0J3OBuXyV2THrrRjQrmEE08U6EpRaoss1D4w9APvV23P SKa16fR6WyShiQbx9kyyosWGaucwFK5QkZfjys5XWn3oXopGpAHNfINZJ/KIYyhT/ITt cW2hUv52P3vZGn+3dns34j8MVjjfbFqUhCDWKKRIwV9MjJ2vLLLBl0McVsDYyGWR9ajR Ss0A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3IM0fltomgitHoHxO6MffEzDeUD7WsX6pQcmsRtVIig=; b=QTmPV54W+pGvXo6iBN0mtg60g5lPM7V3nxllEJD3sV8jOTYSMPMG8sT5rA428/olPF W+l7ktXKIgqMtQVJM9jkWzRlcJPFlVrEKosGkRwfKxbIuOPeXS8nGG03EPBPPY1OzSGk 91yAOTLXd3SGKVGXtqtrK/2Df7nHPtUUmrqbZ9PgUIaYdItUMXTzBiD9RmEgUZBYKIHn ///ksBzK8c6pwCcSGD1FMMrLHAsu47xtOmNYuQHZSV7qlKRuQ5DX+uLBsQDQCsvETQae j5V8MWtxw4SR7TgFsHL/wRUPCnin6fH4mJfKvOUsbBwtULxmVFYGZNI1GlIdRUAaM3eh dzRA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXmSiOee/weQiMufsyaN7XBYiKTPmrru3tQykZ8Eoro0Q/zgwxe jhEOCimNkF0g6AOg/ExVS7q//jh4E4bBnceqdz0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqze+vBZJi06Wp2/QKHuMsRQb2rsyw3q+Rtgy94bRwpGVtCshCxdTocouZxLiB4xwjkhQgd10Hxg4wn6Dg8vll0=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d811:: with SMTP id v17mr28851743edq.277.1582223559131; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:32:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:32:38 -0600
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <29710.1582208163@dooku>
References: <> <29710.1582208163@dooku>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:32:38 -0600
Message-ID: <>
To: Michael Richardson <>
Cc:, Pascal Thubert <>, The IESG <>,,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 18:32:43 -0000

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.



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

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.