IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 13 December 2015 23:36 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21CE61A896D for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 15:36:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 k8aTG5etf-WC for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 15:36:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63B9D1A8969 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 15:36:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A011203AB for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 18:42:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8533063797 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 18:36:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <22121.26199.454802.840992@fireball.acr.fi>
References: <060.92a20915e49c32f8bffbbbb0b4a66869@tools.ietf.org> <075.1f97e51c53b1c124937a2b6c7fca39d7@tools.ietf.org> <a864c3f122d24d638adf712ed92054cd@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <CAMsDxWTA_aAb_ctDk3JTK7M1Z+WJ=9z7yjjqc9KKq2vs2pcKEQ@mail.gmail.com> <22109.37055.77491.693618@fireball.acr.fi> <CAMsDxWQP=3=+-pc1SV=qtGud8E9w2dH8NsycjboNFRPtUhaTrw@mail.gmail.com> <22121.26199.454802.840992@fireball.acr.fi>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 18:36:38 -0500
Message-ID: <24288.1450049798@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/mOFLLBXsXnewVFHlKV815grVVTM>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] #41 (minimal): intended status for draft minimal (was: internded status for draft minimal)
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: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:36:41 -0000

Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> wrote:
    >> Given that context can you please provide solid and objective
    >> arguments on why the specification of a the profile of IPv6 on BTLE is
    >> an standard and what we define in minimal (the 15.4e profile) it is
    >> not? 

    > Does minimal change anything in 802.15.4? I.e. is there something there
    > that is not already defined in 802.15.4 when suitable options of the
    > 802.15.4 is selected?

    > I.e. can someone take 802.15.4 and implement it, picking parameters
    > until he get the same parameters specified in the minimal and then
    > implement minimal without ever reading it.

(I think you write 802.15.4 here rather than 15.4e, because as of now, the
documents are one)

    > My understanding is that yes, 802.15.4 complient implementation which
    > implements just what is already defined in the 802.15.4 can also be
    > complient with minimal, if it selects suitable options.

    > This would make it profile instead of new protocol.

I think that something is a "protocol" (and therefore a "new" protocol), if
there is some interaction in which decisions occur.  A profile has no
decisions, because they are all setup in advance in the document.

Do you agree?
I'm asking because it would be good to agree on what is a "new protocol",
before we decide if minimal is new or not.

    > When you start to implement things on top of that, for example the key
    > management or joining processes, then those parts are outside the scope
    > of 802.15.4 and you have to implement something not mentioned there,
    > then you are making new protocol.

    > On the other hand I do not think there is real difference between those
    > two, i.e. it does not matter whether it is profile or whether it is new
    > protocol for the IETF process point of view.

Would a profile = BCP?


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email