Hello Thomas I agree that we shouldn't place cie Foo in such a situation. We must also be clear that a certification can not concern minimal alone. There will be say an IPSO 4.0 which will define a stack and conformance and interop will be guaranteed forever to that 4.0; so as a pure standard procedure we are covered.
Now, as a community, if we make it so that there are hundreds of non-Interoperable standards then cie Foo will have a minimalistic market and it will die. IOW we'd be shooting ourselves in the feet or probably higher in between if we let that happen. The way to prevent that is not to use the references wrongly. That has no power at all. It's only a way to ensure that what we write auto- deprecates itself whatever the rest of the world does. We are effectively making minimal an interim standard when Tom and Pat illustrate that it sometimes can be otherwise. The way to prevent that is to actively participate to the standards that define the elements that the solutions depend upon. My view: 6TiSCH can certainly express concerns to our IG at IEEE, and individuals are encouraged to contribute to IEEE when they can; but 6TiSCH should still do the right thing as to what we publish, in our best interest. In my view, our best interest is to produce a stable and durable layer 3 operation, as loosely coupled as possible from L2 evolution. And I think we're doing just that and encourage those impacted by L2 stability (or lack thereof) to reconsider their text and figure if we have cases where Pat's example writing applies. I hope that makes sense... Pascal Le 1 mai 2015 à 01:16, Thomas Watteyne <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : <no chair hat> Little thought exercise. Let's assume we decide draft-minimal contains an undated reference to IEEE802.15.4, and is published in 2015. In 2016, company foo builds and sells products based on draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal. Company foo goes to a third-party lab which certifies conformance to draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal. Everything is great, tens of thousands of networks go out the door. Company foo is happy. Now IEEE802.15.4-2018 is published. IEEE802.15.4-2018 has small changes compared to IEEE802.15.4-2015, for example the encoding of the IE header changes from [type,length,value] to [length,type,value], for whatever reason, good or bad. Are company foo's product now stripped off their certification? Even if it takes foo's engineers 2h to release firmware compliant to IEEE802.15,4-2015, what is company foo supposed to do with it? Recall all products? Really!? Let's get even deeper into trouble: company bar starts making products in 2019 based on the same draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal standard as company foo. These products also pass certification, and start selling. But even foo and bar implement the same standard, their product do not interoperate. >From what I understand, this is possible if we put an undated reference to >IEEE802.15.4 in draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal. In that case, we have, as a >standardization organization, completely failed. I hope I'm wrong, and I hope >you can show me why. On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Tom Phinney <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Pat, I agree with you completely. In my experience, many contributors to standards believe it to be their job to guide a reader into finding material in a normative reference by citing specific 'chapter and verse", or in this case detailed subclause numbering, when instead they should be indicating the topic area and specific information that is of importance. Standards that call out lots of specific subclauses by number are a nightmare to maintain, particularly if they reference more than one other normative standard in such detail, because they necessarily need to be updated whenever ANY of those cited-in-detail normative references are updated. If the writer of such clauses was told that they would be devoting one week per year for the rest of their lives to maintaining and updating all the detailed references that they included, it seems likely that they would find ways to word the text that did not so encumber their future. -Tom ===== On 2015.04.30 15:13, Pat Kinney wrote: Qin; You are correct that referring only to the standard does not allow you to refer to sub-clauses or pages and line numbers. I would propose changing the current text: " A 10ms time slot length is the default value defined by [IEEE802154e]. Section 6.4.3.3.3 of [IEEE802154e] defines a default macTimeslotTemplate, i.e. the different duration within the slot. These values are summarized in the following table and MUST be used when utilizing the default time slot duration. In this case, the Timeslot IE only transports the macTimeslotTemplateId (0x00) as the timing values are well known. If a timeslot template other than the default is used, the EB MUST contain a complete TimeSlot IE indicating the timeslot duration and the corresponding timeslot timings, requiring 25 bytes. Note however that in case of discrepancy between the values in this document and [IEEE802154e], the IEEE standard specification has precedence.” with the following text: “The timing parameters for the default macTimeslotTemplate (macTsTemplateID = 0) are summarized in the following table and MUST be used when utilizing the default time slot duration. For the case of the default macTimeslotTemplate, the Timeslot IE only transports the macTimeslotTemplateId (0x00) as the timing values are previously known. If a timeslot template other than the default is used, the EB MUST contain a complete TimeSlot IE indicating the timeslot duration and the corresponding timeslot timings. Note however that in case of discrepancy between the values in this document and IEEE 802.15.4, the IEEE standard has precedence. Pat Pat Kinney Kinney Consulting LLC IEEE 802.15 WG vice chair, TG chair ISA100.11a WG chair O: +1.847.960.3715<tel:%2B1.847.960.3715> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> On 30, Apr2015, at 15:34, Qin Wang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I understand that reference IEEE 802.15.4 includes IEEE802.15.4e by definition. But I have a problem in writing 6TiSCH draft if we remove "e" in reference. Here is an example. "A 10ms time slot length is the default value defined by [IEEE802154e]. Section 6.4.3.3.3 of [IEEE802154e] defines a default macTimeslotTemplate,...." is in the section 3.4 of minimal draft. Then, the question is how to point the exact place if we use IEEE 802.15.4 as reference. Thanks Qin On Friday, May 1, 2015 12:55 AM, Pat Kinney <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: An amendment references (is based upon) the latest revision when it was approved, hence 802.15.4e is based upon (i.e. it references) 802.15.4-2011. Pat Pat Kinney Kinney Consulting LLC IEEE 802.15 WG vice chair, TG chair ISA100.11a WG chair O: +1.847.960.3715<tel:%2B1.847.960.3715> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> On 30, Apr2015, at 10:37, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hello Michael For All I know 4e TSCH is only defined on 2011. There are known similar technologies running over 2006 but they are not 4e... The undated reference in an RFC to an IEEE spec applies to the present state at the date of the RFC and to all future versions unless the RFC is revised. This proved useful for Ethernet; too much maybe since we were fooled into extending IP over Ethernet to Wi-Fi... Cheers, Pascal > Le 30 avr. 2015 à 07:50, Michael Richardson > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : > > > Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: >> Today, undated and without the 'e', IEEE802.15.4 means 2011 plus all >> the amendments. > > Given that we can't run on 802.15.4-2011, this is why I'm concerned about > referencing "802.15.4". > >> So, a reference to IEEE Std 802.3 (without year) today is identical to the >> 2012 dated reference, but when the current revision is approved (expected >> this year), a reference to the 2012 revision would not include the >> maintenance changes included in the current revision, nor any of the >> amendments likely to be approved soon after the revision is approved. > > How does an outsider know when the reference was made? Is it by the date > of the document making the reference? > > If the IETF writes a document in 2014, but it doesn't get published in Jan. > 2015, > what IEEE document would "802.15.4" reference? > > Robert suggests text like: > >> In development of this RFC, IEEE Std 802.99 documents considered included >> IEEE Std 802.99-2016 and P802.99/D8. > > and so if we can do this, then I'm happy. > > > > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, > Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > > _______________________________________________ > 6tisch mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
