Sorry. Finals week.
I still haven't had a chance to read it, but I think that moving it to the
informational track makes a big difference. Don't hold it based on me.
ksjp
On 5/13/2015 8:04 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
Hello Kris:
I still not have posted 08 because I felt from your personal mails
that you were OK but you did not confirm on the list.
Do you have a reason to hold (like you did not yet fully make up your
mind?)
All the best,
Pascal
*From:*Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
*Sent:* vendredi 8 mai 2015 17:59
*To:* 'Kris Pister'; [email protected]
*Subject:* RE: [6tisch] last changes on Archie
Hello Kris:
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.
It is, Kris, and by design I’d say; Archie is a high level view of
things and how they bind together.
It is also the repository of the work as we progress it, and the
design decisions as we make them.
* 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?
I do not think so. Archie is not about 6top. The charter includes the
backbone operation, at least for the architecture level.
But for the components that actuate the architecture, we can only go
to the relevant working groups and suggest additions / modifications
as appropriate.
* 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?
I’m not sure that you’ll ever find all of the combinations, some just
do not make sense.
But these are the tools that we can play with and it’ important that
they are explained somewhere before we start using them.
* 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
I has that comment from René. Are you looking at Archie 07 – there is
a weird thing in the tools that it appears separate?
In 07 security is moved down as you suggest, what’s left is just the
explanation of the boxes that are represented above.
We seem to have reached consensus with René, do you wish to reopen?
* 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.
We are specifically chartered to describe how things work, Kris. This
includes RPL etc…
The problem that we address is that how things work together is
described nowhere and we added that to the 6TiSCH lot.
* I didn't understand section 7 at all. What are we trying to say here?
It’s really defining terms and an intro to section 9, 10, 11.
I could move that down as section 8 and embed 9, 10, and 11, if that
makes more sense?
* 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.
This was discussed many times at 6TiSCH, Kris. And really, one is
plain IP, one is the emulation of industrial protocols, and the last
(fragments) may never see the light of day, but it is present in
drafts and even books so we need at least to describe it at a high level.
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.
It is an informational document, so it is not normative. It is
reporting the status of our work and providing a high level
description of how things work together.
I do think we are OK there…
Thanks for all!
Pascal
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
