Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> wrote: > What I have so far:
> 1) minimal is a base that we expect will operate in many networks since
> it appears to be needed to build the next stage where dedicated time
> slots can be negotiated. Apparently this pleads against informational
> 2) minimal is a recommendation for device builders, as opposed to
> network admin. Apparently this pleads for std track rather than BCP
Not to disagree, but to clarify wording:
Many applicability statements in for-instance email, or routing or
enterprise-networking (INT) explain how to deploy/configure a (set of)
protocol
for use in a particular setting. I.e. what parameters to tweak, what
options to turn on/off. These are advice operational to operators, and
do not cause the operator to change their RFP.
Minimal is something that would appear in an RFP, and is a set of
requirements to implementors as to which options to build in. Given the
constrained nature of devices, those decisions can not be left up to
operators.
> 3) minimal defines a way to compute the Rank that cannot be obtained
> with a simple parameter in an existing implementation. The operation
> SHOULD be programmed in the device for interoperation and that
> operation is not specified in a preexisting RFC. This pleads for std
> track
Well, this might point towards there needing to be a new ROLL document that
should be on standards track that minimal should reference.
This might still be a good idea.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
