Hi Kris: I processed what I could as https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture/src/3f43e366a9c532a3a24743f5592c7e70e863f9af/draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-08.txt?at=master
Could you please confirm if that is OK or suggest changes/additions? Thanks a bunch ! Pascal From: 6tisch [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kris Pister Sent: mercredi 6 mai 2015 20:40 To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); [email protected] Subject: Re: [6tisch] last changes on Archie Pascal - I'm not on expert on IESG review, so take my comments with a grain of salt. High level: * this feels more like a research proposal or DARPA quarterly status report than an RFC. It's filled with lots of good ideas, and evidence that people are working on solving hard problems, but much of it is *very* preliminary. * I'm worried that the scope of the document goes way beyond what 6TiSCH was chartered to do. Maybe that's a good thing in managing our path forward with the IESG? * The first section says that we have (using present tense) three different ways to compute routes, four different ways to manage cell schedules, and three different forwarding models, or 36 different combinations. Most of them are still not defined. As an implementer, that really scared me. Will the IESG feel differently? * What little is specified generally relies on IDs, not RFCs, and even the IDs are often not adopted by their respective working groups yet. Some specifics: * move security from 5.1 and put it in 13 with the rest of security * all of section 6 "6lowpan (and RPL)" seems to be good stuff, but higher layer than 6TiSCH, and with no particular impact on, or from, TSCH. It seems that it should just be removed to a separate draft in another working group. * I didn't understand section 7 at all. What are we trying to say here? * Section 10 on Forwarding Models seems like an interesting vision, but its so far beyond anything that anyone has implemented (or even discussed? Maybe I missed the threads) that it should be written up in a separate ID. Again, I don't know the process, so maybe this kind of visionary document is what the IESG is looking for. I'd be much happier with a bottom-up development, e.g. this is what we have now, this is what runs, here's a little bit of extrapolation of where we're headed next. ksjp On 4/29/2015 5:21 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: Dear all : At the interim call we found that Archie is mostly ready to ship but for 2 things; 1) we need to decide on the IEEE reference 2) some editorial changes would be required to improve readability and make the IESG review process smoother. For 1) the proposal is to use an undated reference since the spec does not reference specific points in IEEE specs. For 2) Kris, as a coauthor, will propose some changes and come back to us in the coming week. If you object to these resolutions, please let us know. Cheers, Pascal _______________________________________________ 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
