[6tisch] 6tisch architecture intended status
"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Thu, 18 October 2018 08:41 UTC
Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
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 44C271292F1 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 01:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.564
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.064, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 CFtY-kCGzqQZ for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 01:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44446128CF3 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 01:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5727; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1539852067; x=1541061667; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=Prqwm/yrggr5307IMGJBoF1JuYpqmkpW5oZe8XokX1c=; b=Dlqj3BYT+FX8fzQqA7QGEezvo36Xl0XFJdKsrrurKCOkgg0LCYz8e3f3 TeVYthBZJrUnj2Xb3ahHNJQfkFSffCqFU960Zgi8WPMf1rH1iNiB9GrKL BPj1BridjOfdImyx1VIfQQsgps6Ypk/hKs5gt4SoVB4rU/vcizEQQLY3E k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ANAAC7Rchb/4wNJK1jGwEBAQEDAQEBBwMBAQGBUQYBAQELAYENd2Z/MowCjBuTVIVIFIFmCwEBJYRHhQAhNA0NAQMBAQIBAQJtHAELhW1FBxIBGmYXDwEEDg2DGYEdZA+nKIQ+P4UjBYtNF4FBP4c+AgMBgSWGEgKOLZALCQKGWYoEH5AnjEyJUQIRFIEmHTiBVXAVgnMBNIIlF4hbhT6KXYEfAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,395,1534809600"; d="scan'208,217";a="468093858"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Oct 2018 08:41:06 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-007.cisco.com (xch-aln-007.cisco.com [173.36.7.17]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w9I8f6Xa030191 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 08:41:06 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-007.cisco.com (173.36.7.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 03:41:05 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 03:41:05 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
CC: "Shwetha Bhandari (shwethab)" <shwethab@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: 6tisch architecture intended status
Thread-Index: AdRmvXFJBZINW7ysSqWUEuZHuxo3tQ==
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 08:40:46 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 08:39:54 +0000
Message-ID: <5bb59c1decb9424aace1156b0b881063@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.55.22.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5bb59c1decb9424aace1156b0b881063XCHRCD001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.17, xch-aln-007.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-7.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/qxeFuhVNGV5wXjgz1yHY8Mp8e1I>
Subject: [6tisch] 6tisch architecture intended status
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: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 08:41:09 -0000
Dear all A question arises at DetNet about the intended status for the archicture. Quoting Lou: " The key difference is that from a process standpoint, PS means that the document goes through and IETF LC -- which makes the document and IETF consensus document which we agreed as important given the inter SDO relationship / nature of detnet. Here's what I said in: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-architecture/shepherdwriteup/ This document has inter-IETF Areas and inter-SDO impact, most notably with IEEE, and having this document be an IETF consensus document is therefore considered highly important. < The same applies to the 6TiSCH architecture and it seems that we need to get the same level or review and ship as proposed standard. And that's probably soon now. Thoughts? Pascal
- [6tisch] 6tisch architecture intended status Pascal Thubert (pthubert)