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

"6tisch issue tracker" <trac+6tisch@tools.ietf.org> Mon, 30 November 2015 12:27 UTC

Return-Path: <trac+6tisch@tools.ietf.org>
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 1894B1A00BC for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 04:27:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 ERujJnU3ays0 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 04:27:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E32C31A00B4 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 04:27:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:42358 helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <trac+6tisch@tools.ietf.org>) id 1a3NXw-00068n-W7; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 04:27:09 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: 6tisch issue tracker <trac+6tisch@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.5
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.5, by Edgewall Software
To: xvilajosana@gmail.com, pthubert@cisco.com
X-Trac-Project: 6tisch
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:27:08 -0000
X-URL: https://tools.ietf.org/6tisch/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6tisch/trac/ticket/41#comment:1
Message-ID: <075.b9608c19f6c78aa4c19e22ffba849859@tools.ietf.org>
References: <060.92a20915e49c32f8bffbbbb0b4a66869@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 41
In-Reply-To: <060.92a20915e49c32f8bffbbbb0b4a66869@tools.ietf.org>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: xvilajosana@gmail.com, pthubert@cisco.com, 6tisch@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+6tisch@tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/xJI2dRlp5qBO5RiHVaggNjOq88A>
Cc: 6tisch@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6tisch] #41 (minimal): internded status for draft minimal
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:27:11 -0000

#41: internded status for draft minimal


Comment (by pthubert@cisco.com):

 from the interim call minutes, Nov 27th

 o       [Michael] no intended surveys, but BCPs ("profile") say that,
 "when using protocol X in context Y, you SHOULD use parameters Z". This is
 for operators rather than implementors. Minimal says you to use RPL, which
 you would not implement if you were just using IEEE802.15.4e. AD asked
 whether this will be used beyond a plugtest.
 o       [Pascal] node requirements for IPv6 is informational, it does not
 mandate behaviors. Just information about the mote; but doesn't use
 "MUST". Minimal draft does say you need to compute the RPL rank according.
 That draft is what this is specified, so it's not just setting parameters.
 Think we are beyond informational.
 o       [Malisa] agreed with Pascal & Michael, would make sense to publish
 as standards track. The DTLS profile that is a similar scope, is intended
 to be published as standards track.
 o       [Michael] RFC6434 list RFCs that you are expected you should look
 at. RFC6434 should not have been informational. Strictly speaking,
 informational are not standards.
 o       [Michael] we have a BCP number, but no informational numbers.
 o       [Thomas] Consensus on Standards track. How do we proceed? We are
 building on top of it Default setup on top of it.
 o       [Michael] A good answer. We have not articulated that.
 o       [Thomas] It is important to publish this. Standard track. RPL rank
 no anywhere else. This is the spec.
 o       [Pascal] Nobody wants informational, better standard track.
 Recommendation for developers than for deployers.
 o       [Thomas] Discuss on the ML.

-- 
-----------------------------------+------------------------------------
 Reporter:  pthubert@cisco.com     |       Owner:  xvilajosana@gmail.com
     Type:  defect                 |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                  |   Milestone:  milestone1
Component:  minimal                |     Version:  1.0
 Severity:  Submitted WG Document  |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                         |
-----------------------------------+------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6tisch/trac/ticket/41#comment:1>
6tisch <https://tools.ietf.org/6tisch/>
IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e