[6tisch] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sun, 16 February 2020 17:57 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietf.org
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBD2712001B; Sun, 16 Feb 2020 09:57:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon@ietf.org, Pascal Thubert <pthubert@cisco.com>, 6tisch-chairs@ietf.org, pthubert@cisco.com, 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.117.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <158187587385.5858.4196333441268190800.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 09:57:53 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/_fUq2lFr8AWAVWh5VJmupdbDAls>
Subject: [6tisch] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 17:57:54 -0000

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-12: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


** Section 2.  Rank Priority and Pan Priority.  Can you please clarify whether
a higher or lower number indicated an increased priority:

-- Rank priority says “Lower values are better” -- What does “better” mean?  Is
a lower number more or less willing this 6LR is to serve as the RPL parent?

-- Pan priority doesn’t include guidance on whether a higher or lower number
indicate increased priority.

** Section 2.  network id.  Can you please clarify the computation of the
default value using SHA-256.

The text initially says that network id is a “variable length field, up to 16
bytes in size”.  Later it says that “the network ID can be constructed from a
SHA256 hash of the prefix (/64) of the network.  That is just a suggestion for
a default value.”  However, a SHA256 hash has a 256 bit output which can’t fit
into a 16 byte field size.  Is there a truncation?


** Section 2.  Rank Priority.
This is a local
      value to be determined in other work.  It might be calculated from
      RPL rank, and it may include some modifications based upon current
      number of children, or number of neighbor cache entries available.

-- what’s a local value?  What’s the other work?

-- the follow on sentence of “It might be … “ doesn’t seem decisive in the
guidance.  Would it be cleaner to say, that the computation of this value is
out of scope of this document.

** Editorial

-- Please review Yoav Nir’s SECDIR feedback

-- Abstract.  Per “Nodes in the TSCH network typically frequently transmit …”,
likely only “typically” or “frequently” is needed.

-- Typo.  s/the the/the/g