[6tisch] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-24: 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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I only had a quick read of this document, however, it seems to me that there
are strong dependencies on a whole bunch of drafts, that are only listed as
informational. I don't have a deep enough understanding to make a final
judgement of which draft would need to be listed as normative references,
however, I wanted to raise this point on the discuss level in order to ensure
that this is considered before publication.

To give an example: Section 4.6.3 goes quite seep into details of what's
described in [I-D.ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery]. However as long as
[I-D.ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery] is not published yet, the 6tisch arch should
probably not rely on the content of this draft that strongly. Putting
[I-D.ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery] as a normative reference ensures that this
draft will not be published before [I-D.ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery].


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said, I only had a rather brief read, however, I had a bit of problems to
follow exactly which parts of the architecture rely on existing protocols and
mechanisms and where 6tsch actually needs to define new approaches. Maybe a
short, even higher-level overview than section 3, could address this and help
the reader.