Dear Xavi,
Thank you.
Regards, Benoit
Dear Benoit, thanks for your comments. Please see inline our
response. A new version of the draft will be published later today.
regards,
X
---
Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-20: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
While reading, I frowned upon the same MAY & RPL issue as mentioned by
Alvaro:
The Introduction mentions that "RPL is specified to provide the framework
for time synchronization in an 802.15.4 TSCH network.", but Section 5
(RPL Settings) makes it optional: "In a multi-hop topology, the RPL
routing protocol [RFC6550] MAY be used."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The two sentences in the intro referring to RPL have been removed. We
think now that entering this discussion in the intro is too early.
Our goal is to support implementations that want to use RPL. In this
sense, we indicate how to map the L3 topology with the L2 (and timing)
topology when RPL is used. However we do not want to restrict other
possible routing protocols.
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
2017-02-16 11:51 GMT+01:00 Benoit Claise <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-20: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
<https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html>
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal/>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
While reading, I frowned upon the same MAY & RPL issue as mentioned by
Alvaro:
The Introduction mentions that "RPL is specified to provide the
framework
for time synchronization in an 802.15.4 TSCH network.", but Section 5
(RPL Settings) makes it optional: "In a multi-hop topology, the RPL
routing protocol [RFC6550] MAY be used."
--
Dr. Xavier Vilajosana
Wireless Networks Lab
/Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3)
Professor/
(+34) 646 633 681
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://xvilajosana.org
http://wine.rdi.uoc.edu
Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia
Av Carl Friedrich Gauss 5, B3 Building
08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona). Catalonia. Spain
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
