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

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

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.

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