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

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

I'm good with that, Alvaro.

I'd rather keep section 7.2 and maybe mark it, like, informational. I think it helps the casual reader though arguably not the developer.

I realized from your mail that you did not see that I posted as promised. My fault. I forwarded the 2 posts to you, one to RAW/DetNet/6TiSCH and one to 6MAN. For PCE I do not see a I dot place a dot upon so I'll defer till you hint me.

Have a great year!

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
> Sent: jeudi 5 janvier 2023 15:44
> To: [e-mail]; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Roll] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-roll-
> dao-projection-31
> 
> On January 5, 2023 at 3:48:54 AM, Pascal Thubert wrote:
> 
> 
> Pascal:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> If it adds no value then I don't see why it should be kept.
> 
> 
> But before you remove it:
> 
> ...
> > 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...
> 
> That's the point: if the components are leveraged (e.g. the discussions
> in raw about tracks) then I want them to review this document before
> publication.  You're right, this is not about having a dependency on
> them, but them having a potential dependency on this document.
> 
> 
> > ...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.
> 
> I know you're deeply involved in all the related architecture documents,
> chair 6tisch, etc.  I trust your work too.
> 
> However, I just want for us to "dot the i’s and cross the t’s" [1].
> Asking for WG feedback should be enough.
> 
> [1] https://www.theidioms.com/dot-the-is-and-cross-the-ts/
> 
> 
> ...
> > 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.
> 
> Yes, I know the history.  Again, "dot the i’s and cross the t’s".
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Alvaro.