Re: [6tisch] [IANA #1160596] expert review for draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon (ieee-std-802.15.4-ietf-ie-subtype-ids)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 14 February 2020 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1770D120119 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 08:20:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.501
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7k-oPmkZbkLc for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 08:20:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (minerva.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2a01:7e00::3d:b000]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 331C212011A for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 08:20:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (unknown [46.183.103.8]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAF6B1F459; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 16:20:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 7B0751A2B93; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 17:20:37 +0100 (CET)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>, 6tisch@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <24111.25789.959854.33376@fireball.acr.fi>
References: <RT-Ticket-1160596@icann.org> <rt-4.4.3-28455-1579622756-1836.1160596-37-0@icann.org> <rt-4.4.3-3896-1579622958-1861.1160596-37-0@icann.org> <24111.25789.959854.33376@fireball.acr.fi>
Comments: In-reply-to Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> message dated "Tue, 28 Jan 2020 00:31:25 +0200."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 17:20:37 +0100
Message-ID: <27092.1581697237@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/QgK0N9WzSUu3Djb1mKU_Kk3mqCI>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] [IANA #1160596] expert review for draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon (ieee-std-802.15.4-ietf-ie-subtype-ids)
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
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" <6tisch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6tisch/>
List-Post: <mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 16:20:47 -0000

Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> wrote:
    > Sabrina Tanamal via RT writes:
    >> As the designated experts for the IEEE Std 802.15.4 IETF IE Subtype
    >> IDs registry, can you review the proposed registration in
    >> draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon for us? Please see 
    >> 
    >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-08

    > I checked the -09 version and it seems the actual contents of the IE
    > is mostly well defined, but description of the some of the fields is
    > not very well defined. For example in section 2 the text:

    > P  if the Proxy Address P-flag is set, then the lower 64-bits of the
    > Join Proxy's link-local address follows the network ID.  If the
    > Proxy Address bit is not set, then the Link Layer address of the
    > Join Proxy is identical to the Layer-2 8-byte address used to
    > originate this enhanced beacon.  In either case, the destination
    > layer-2 address of this beacon may use the layer-2 address which
    > was used to originate the beacon.

    > I have no idea what the last sentence of that paragraph is trying to
    > say.

I have clarified this by moving most of this text into the section on
the Join Proxy lower-64, leaving just the fact that the P-bit indicates
of the Join Proxy lower-64 is present.

The last sentence is wrong, thank you for catching this.
I have removed it. It intended to say that join traffic may use this
address as the destination, but I don't think it adds anything to say that
here.

here are the changes:
https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/6tisch-join-enhanced-beacon/commits/9cd43a339c4d3f35ac024f6070ff37ba27053f05

    >> The IESG has asked us to set a two-week deadline for registration
    >> reviews. The due date for this request is 2020-02-04.  

    > The actual allocation would be ok, but before actual numbers are
    > allocated, it would be better to make sure there is no need to change
    > the format anymore, thus it would be good to make sure that the
    > document is stable enough and almost finished before this is done.

    > The current document seems to still have lots of other issues, so
    > delaying to get fixes to those might be approriate. 

I would like to know what other changes you think will be needed to the field
definitions.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [