Re: [Roll] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-31

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Alvaro

About your item (2) I believe your reading was too quick.  I disagree that the section has “specific expectations related to the work of other WGs“. There is no dependency on 6TiSCH, PCE, DetNet or RAW. The spec does not ask for any sort of work from those groups is not specifying anything that those groups are chartered to specify.  IOW we can remove 7.2 without a loss of content for this specification.

In more details:

The PCE section is there to indicate that it is out of scope; if that creates more hassle than not, then I’d rather remove the section since I have no idea what to tell the PCE group or what question I could ask them to help with.

For the others WG mentioned, that is 6TiSCH, DetNet, and RAW, these small sections are considerations to position this work in relation with their respective architectures. This doc provides components that could be leveraged within those architectures, and as editor of all 3 architecture docs I guess I can help the reader who did not follow actively all those WGs figure out how all those  IETF elements connect. While I’m happy to post to those groups, if having that text is more hassle than it is useful then I can remove that it altogether.

For the RAW piece, RAW is already aware of this work because of the common terminology, see the thread “I-D Action: draft-ietf-raw-architecture-10.txt” and the terminology discussions in London. I ‘m happy to post there (cc detnet and 6TiSCH) since the intrication is deeper due to that common terminology. But the dependency is really the other way around since this doc uses terms defined in RAW and I do not expect there’s a general need to bother each WG from which terminology is used.

I’ll post to 6MAN about the change in the RPL option. You’ll note that this is ROLL work that was finalized at 6MAN because we defined a new option, but 6MAN does not care much about the content we have in there, so I do not expect much comment. We’ll see.

I’ll leave it to Ines to post to rtg-dir since that was your request to the chairs. Happy to see that review earlier than later.

Works?

Pascal

From: Roll <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana
Sent: mercredi 4 janvier 2023 20:02
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [SUSPECTED SPAM] Re: [Roll] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-31


Hi!

I had a very quick look at this document.  It needs additional reviews.


(1) §4 uses "amends" as an indication of a formal Update (along the lines of draft-kuehlewind-rswg-updates-tag).  Because what we have today is only the Updates tag, please indicate in the header and the text any Updated RFCs.

(1a) One of them seems to be rfc6553, so we'll need to get 6man to review that.


(2) §3.7.2 (Positioning vs. Related IETF Standards) mentions specific expectations related to the work of other WGs:

    3.7.2.1.  Extending 6TiSCH
    3.7.2.2.  Mapping to DetNet
    3.7.2.3.  Leveraging PCE
    3.7.2.4.  Providing for RAW

I couldn't find a (formal) request for these WGs to review the document.  Did I miss it?  If not, then please request it.  I know that there is significant participation overlap -- that is not enough.


(3) Per the request in October [1], I need you to also request a rtg-dir review.


While I'm hoping that none of these reviews result in significant changes, I'm returning the document to the WG.

Suggestion:  Once the draft has been revised with the Updates information, issue a new WGLC and cc all the relevant WGs on it.


Thanks!

Alvaro.


[1] Sent to rtg-chairs (which is not a proper mailing-list), search for "Message-ID: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>".


On January 4, 2023 at 11:48:16 AM, Ines Robles via Datatracker ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) wrote:
Ines Robles has requested publication of draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-31 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the ROLL working group.

Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection/