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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 01 December 2015 14:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@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 7CE9C1B3AE6 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 06:06:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 cY-UIztlBJge for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 06:06:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7481B1B3ADE for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 06:06:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4FE52009E; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 09:11:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 1FBE163757; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 09:06:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AA5763753; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 09:06:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <a864c3f122d24d638adf712ed92054cd@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <060.92a20915e49c32f8bffbbbb0b4a66869@tools.ietf.org> <075.1f97e51c53b1c124937a2b6c7fca39d7@tools.ietf.org> <a864c3f122d24d638adf712ed92054cd@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-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: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 09:06:11 -0500
Message-ID: <11887.1448978771@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/trchQMsV0fJKAsqJoIZeze194mI>
Cc: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, "xvilajosana@gmail.com" <xvilajosana@gmail.com>
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: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 14:06:14 -0000

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
    > What I have so far:

    > 1) minimal is a base that we expect will operate in many networks since
    > it appears to be needed to build the next stage where dedicated time
    > slots can be negotiated. Apparently this pleads against informational

    > 2) minimal is a recommendation for device builders, as opposed to
    > network admin. Apparently this pleads for std track rather than BCP

Not to disagree, but to clarify wording:
    Many applicability statements in for-instance email, or routing or
    enterprise-networking (INT) explain how to deploy/configure a (set of) protocol
    for use in a particular setting. I.e. what parameters to tweak, what
    options to turn on/off.  These are advice operational to operators, and
    do not cause the operator to change their RFP.

    Minimal is something that would appear in an RFP, and is a set of
    requirements to implementors as to which options to build in.  Given the
    constrained nature of devices, those decisions can not be left up to operators.

    > 3) minimal defines a way to compute the Rank that cannot be obtained
    > with a simple parameter in an existing implementation. The operation
    > SHOULD be programmed in the device for interoperation and that
    > operation is not specified in a preexisting RFC. This pleads for std
    > track

Well, this might point towards there needing to be a new ROLL document that
should be on standards track that minimal should reference.

This might still be a good idea.


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