[6tisch] Fwd: Minutes, 22 January 2016 interim, 6TiSCH WG

"pat.kinney@kinneyconsultingllc.com" <pat.kinney@kinneyconsultingllc.com> Tue, 26 January 2016 18:28 UTC

Return-Path: <pat.kinney@kinneyconsultingllc.com>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83F6C1B2ACB for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:28:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8z8Ivdt42SHF for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:28:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p3plsmtpa07-06.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa07-06.prod.phx3.secureserver.net []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 059521B2AC2 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:28:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by p3plsmtpa07-06.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with id AiUL1s0023opgZu01iULh7; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 11:28:21 -0700
From: "pat.kinney@kinneyconsultingllc.com" <pat.kinney@kinneyconsultingllc.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1010E058-3902-4087-B03C-7FEA69734E35"
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:28:19 -0600
References: <6E1170F7-A0DF-4D2C-89D4-9765530F1D2D@gmail.com>
To: 6tisch <6tisch@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <36169C18-69FE-479D-8F6D-3AF64294FD65@kinneyconsultingllc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/aWphJ5848o9LBO5TiPTZRCpKSXo>
Subject: [6tisch] Fwd: Minutes, 22 January 2016 interim, 6TiSCH WG
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:28:26 -0000


Sorry I missed the call due to being at the IEEE 802 session last week.  

I would like to inform you that the IEEE 802.15 work group (WG) has approved the IEEE 802.15.12 Upper Layer Interface (ULI) Project Authorization Request (PAR).  The next step is for the IEEE 802 WGs review the PAR and suggest corrective language.  Should they approve it, it will then go to the IEEE New Standards Committee (NesCom) for final approval before it becomes a fully approved project.  You can download the PAR document: 15-15-0760-06 (https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/15/15-15-0760-06-0llc-802-15-12-par-draft.docx <https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/15/15-15-0760-06-0llc-802-15-12-par-draft.docx>).  I have included the Scope of the PAR below for your convenience:

802.15.12 Scope: This standard defines an Upper Layer Interface (ULI) sublayer in Layer 2 (L2), between Layer 3 (L3) and the IEEE 802.15.4 Media Access Control (MAC) sublayer.  The ULI provides interfaces for data, control, and management information.  The ULI adapts L3 protocols and provides operational configuration including network and regulation requirements of the IEEE 802.15.4 MAC.  Furthermore, the ULI integrates upper Layer 2 sub-layer (L2+) functionalities focused on interfacing to IEEE Std 802.15.4 such as Key Management Protocols (KMP), L2 routing (L2R) protocols, and Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) 6TiSCH Operation Protocol (6TOP) for optional use.  Finally, the ULI provides protocol differentiation, using mechanisms such as EtherType, to support multiple, diverse higher layer protocols.    

Pat Kinney
Kinney Consulting LLC
IEEE 802.15 WG vice chair, SC chair
ISA100 co-chair, ISA100.20 chair
O: +1.847.960.3715
pat.kinney@kinneyconsultingllc.com <mailto:pat.kinney@kinneyconsultingllc.com>

On 22, Jan2016, at 11:04, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com <mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>> wrote:

 Connection details

Date: 7-8AM Pacific: http://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=100,12,5392171,1850147&h=100&date=2016-01-22&sln=15-16 <http://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=100,12,5392171,1850147&h=100&date=2016-01-22&sln=15-16>
Webex recording: https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/lsr.php?RCID=67f581ad9b624c5cb98a0d2fe3535db7 <https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/lsr.php?RCID=67f581ad9b624c5cb98a0d2fe3535db7>
Wiki: https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/meetings/wiki/160122_webex <https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/meetings/wiki/160108_webex>
Meeting slides: https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/meetings/raw/039a65c5a896825ebbc2c71b24aab75b439a379b/160122_webex/slides_160122_webex.ppt <https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/meetings/raw/039a65c5a896825ebbc2c71b24aab75b439a379b/160122_webex/slides_160122_webex.ppt>
Etherpad Link: http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/6tisch?useMonospaceFont=true <http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/6tisch?useMonospaceFont=true>
Taking notes (using Etherpad)

Thomas Watteyne
Pascal Thubert
Diego Dujovne
Keoma Brun-Laguna
Michael Richardson
Xavi Vilajosana
Simon Duquennoy
Present (alphabetically)

Thomas Watteyne
Pascal Thubert
C-Y Lee
Diego Dujovne
Jonathan Munoz
Keoma Brun
Michael Richardson
Pascal Thubert
Patrick Wetterwald
Qin Wang
S.V.R. Anand
Sedat Gormus
Shahid Raza
Simon Duquennoy
Simon Duquennoy
Sven Akkermans
Tengfei Chang
Xavi Vilajosana
Zhuo Chen
Action Items

QIN: will start a discussion on the ML on what we do on information and yang data model

Administrivia [2min]
Approval agenda
Approval minutes last call
rechartering news
6LoRH [20min]
draft(s) status
ML issues, proposed formats
6top-sublayer [10min]
ML Discussion on recommended formats
Minimal Draft [15min]
impacts on main text from intro changes
Suresh's issues 
Next steps 
PlugTest [10min]
Walk-through (delta) tests
related question about the 6lorh and 6top
AOB [1min]

·        [07.04] Meeting starts

·        [07.07] Administrivia [2min]

·        Approval agenda

no issues raised, agenda approved
Approval minutes last call
no issues raised, minutes approved
o   rechartering news 

mcr was asked opinion by IESG about 6tisch recharter, wrt ROLL and mcr confirmed it was good.
Xavi: we need some information about the layer
Pascal: let's not confuse terms
Thomas: Yang model is extensive, should we start from Draft reduce to the security ?
Pascal: question from Benoit is confusing a little bit. Where is the information model ?
Thomas: data model = interface draft whereas information model = sublayer draft
Qin: suggest we discuss in ML
Pascal: can you start thread
Thomas: Can we avoid this discussion again ?
·        [07.15] 6LoRH (Pascal) [20min]

draft(s) status
Pascal: 6LoRH draft adopted
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch-01 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch-01>
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch-03 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch-03>
Paging system: two documents now.
o   topic: how do we go certain things, answers tech questions from Tengfei and Simon

example 1: case where we have a packet from the DODAG toward the Root (ICMP and UDP)
In this case we don't need IP-in-IP ???
Where is the RPI ?
slide 9: ICMP example
slide 10: UDP example
6LoRH goes BEFORE the IPHC, this is an important addition of the draft
node which wants to add a 6LoRH will NOT have to change the IPHC packet
things are reversed: IPHC and IP-in-IP goes at the END of the packet
as packet progresses, the addresses in 6LoRH are being removed. Different than IPv6. In
in 6LoRH:
routing head is "consumed": size of 6loRH is reduced as the packet travels from root into the LLN
the next hop is the first address in the 6LoRH, NOT the IPv6 destination address (final destination in inner IP-in-IP header)
Thomas: Do we have to carry the full IPv6 address in all RHs?
Pascal: "normal" case in 6TiSCH:
only 2-byte addresses, remaining 112 bits inferred from the source
you know what the source of the packet is
Simon: about slide 11 removing addresses as you go is good. But how interoperable with RFC6554? all addresses are in RFC6554? Would expect from 6LoRH to compress existing 6554 headers.
Pascal: you can reconstruct an RH3 from 6LoRH, but it will not be the same one as if you
Michael: important for efficiency. It's possible to deploy nodes with 6LoRH but not turn it on (manageable)
why does it matter?
Simon: in the routing header, the addresses are not consumed
Pascal: 6man might complain. problem with authentication.
Simon: big problem?
Pascal: we have L2 security, we can trust that routing header will not be compromised.
Simon: big sec threat. 6LoRH should not impact 6LoWPAN
Pascal: do you want to keep the data in the RH? -technical decision
Simon: AH (authentication header). In IPv6, you have to replace the destination address.
Pascal: Any RPL packet could be attacked the same way. But it is not because we have L2 security. If we wanted to keep the addresses we could add an index in 6LoRH to ... WG to decide
Simon: why couldn't we remove addresses from 6554?
Pascal: probably for passing 6man faster.
Thomas: the idea of 6554 is to do a version for 6LoWPAN. When we implemented the last plugtest, we realized that we could ping 3 hops away
Even if we add an index, we will not pass 6MAN if we have an option not to use it ??
Xavi: 6554 doesn't say anything about what happens 
the receiver doesn't ...
Thomas: we can specify how the AH is calculated
Pascal discusses different use cases with the types of the addresses.
§  the new draft explain the recursive process of popping the first address in RH3-6LoRH, asking text review

§  If the packet is fragmented, same fragmentation rule as IPHC

discussion about where IP-in-IP header goes. Slide 14 about proposed order.
when decoding 6LoRH headers, 
Thomas: Why multiple RH3?
Pascal: e.g. from one PAN to the next
Xavi: clarifying: fragmentation header right after MAC?
Pascal: yes
Pascal: without order, you cannot do IP-in-IP-in-IP
Pascal: discussion is about the order of the headers, proposal:
1st reason: starting with RH is simpler as it is consumed
2nd reason: need a clear separator
Pascal: proposal: reverse all the headers (keep logic as with IPHC and 6LoRH) IPHC and 6LoRH are the separators
Pascal: RH3, then RPI, then 6LoRH.
Simon feels it adds complexity
the draft is redesigned to work on the compressed form
if you don't want that you have to rewrite everything 
Thomas: Do we remove addresses of the routing header ?
What are the arguments to put the header before ?
Pascal: the main idea was to make easy to manipulate the header
When its compressed its not meant to be read. DO people read in the zipped file?
·        [08.09] PlugTest [10min]

Thomas: motes sent to the people
dissector available
Golden version available
·        Walk-through (delta) tests

·        related question about the 6lorh and 6top

[07.??] AOB [1min]
[08.??] Meeting ends
6tisch mailing list
6tisch@ietf.org <mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch>