Subject: [Roll] should 6tsch adopt draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability?

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 16:30:19 -0400

This email is directed at IESG types, as this requires an IESG action.

>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Watteyne <[email-masked]> writes:
    Thomas> After discussion and suggestions from numerous 6TSCH and
    Thomas> other people here at the IETF, the chairs have created a
    Thomas> new, simplified version of the draft, which we have uploaded
    Thomas> in the repo at:
    Thomas> https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/charter-ietf-6tsch/src/master/charter-ietf-6tsch-00.txt

Foolishly, I didn't copy this to my laptop before leaving for the
cottage, where I am now catching up on some mailing lists using DTN
protocols, as no network, so I haven't read the above. 

In the last version that I read the question of what, if anything, to do
with draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability was unresolved.

To recap, the options are:

1) nothing. Leave it in ROLL. It may progress as is, or it may reference sixtus
   work non-norminatively.
   A second document (-bis) might reference sixtus normatively in the future.

2) leave it in ROLL, have it reference sixtus work normatively, and
   have this document stalled until sixtus progresses.

3) move this document to sixtus, where I think it will get significantly
   more review and energy.

There are perhaps other options, which I would like to add to a list,
and then make a WG consensus call (in ROLL) about what feedback ROLL
would like the IESG to hear.

(You can perhaps see which one I prefer)

-- 
Michael Richardson
-at the cottage-

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 18:37:20 -0400

please see inline.

>>>>> "mcr" == Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> writes:
    Thomas> in the repo at:

    mcr> Foolishly, I didn't copy this to my laptop before leaving for
    mcr> the cottage, where I am now catching up on some mailing lists
    mcr> using DTN protocols, as no network, so I haven't read the
    mcr> above.

I have re-read this final version.

Applicability statements are not included in the current charter, nor is
it clear to me if the industrial uses envisioned by the ROLL
industrial applicability statement knows if it needs static of dynamic 
schedules.

    mcr> In the last version that I read the question of what, if
    mcr> anything, to do with
    mcr> draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability was unresolved.

    mcr> To recap, the options are:

    mcr> 1) nothing. Leave it in ROLL. It may progress as is, or it may
    mcr> reference sixtus work non-norminatively.  A second document
    mcr> (-bis) might reference sixtus normatively in the future.

    mcr> 2) leave it in ROLL, have it reference sixtus work normatively,
    mcr> and have this document stalled until sixtus progresses.

    mcr> 3) move this document to sixtus, where I think it will get
    mcr> significantly more review and energy.

    mcr> There are perhaps other options, which I would like to add to a

I am now of the opinion that proceeding with (1), as things are, might
be the best way forward for now, but that a -bis document in some group
would be appropriate.  

My message to IESG-types is that the industrial applicability
statement-bis is required.

My uncertainty is that I don't not know if the non-bis applicability
statement will have any practical use in industry at all.  It might not
be worth the 16-bits to store the RFC#.   I look to those better
connected to that industry to say.

-- 
Michael Richardson
-at the cottage-

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:45:21 +0100

Hi Michael,

Thanks for thinking about this.

I believe I read the bottom line as "Steady as she goes,"  but with the
intention of looking back at this from time to time.

And yes, Ted, should sixtus also have a milestone for some form of applicability
statement?

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:17:27 +0000

> And yes, Ted, should sixtus also have a milestone for some form of applicability

Do you mean in the form of a draft?

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:22:52 +0100

Yup (with the intention of publication as an RFC :-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 19 August 2013 13:17
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Michael Richardson; 6TSCH; <[email-masked]>;
<draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-
> [email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: should 6tsch adopt draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability?
>