IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e
charter-ietf-6tisch-02

[Ballot comment]
Nit.
OLD: - Producing a YANG Data Models to manage 6tisch is foreseen, but left to a later
phase.
NEW: - Producing YANG Data Models to manage 6tisch is foreseen, but left to a later
phase.

[Ballot comment]

This talks about doing security work for bootstrap which is
great, and also about allowing scheduling information to
be updated/distributed. Would I be correct in assuming that
it needs to be possible for the schedule updates to be as
secure as the bootstrap? I hope so, anyway.  Not sure if
this needs to be stated in the charter though. (Well, if
the answer is "no, updates never need security" then I
think the opposite should be stated in the charter:-)

[Ballot comment]
Not a block, but I would like to discuss the "OPS" situation in the charter/WG.

Looking at this paragraph:
- Produce an Information Model containing the management requirements
of a 6TiSCH node. This includes describing how an entity can manage the
TSCH schedule on a 6TiSCH node, and query timeslot information from that
node. A data model mapping for an existing protocol (such as Concise
Binary Object Representation (CBOR) over the Constrained Application
Protocol (CoAP)) will be provided. This work depends on the standardization of a
method to access management data resources in constrained devices, such as
proposed by CoMI or COOL.

I wonder if this paragraph is still accurate?
There is  this WG document, for a YANG data model, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-interface-04, on which I commented during one of the interim call.  So the YANG model should be specifically mentioned.
Also, will the WG still produce an information model? If not, "information model" should be removed

[Ballot comment]
I always prefer when the proposed milestones (document, intended status, and target dates) are populated.
It helps the work assessment and review.
Important note: the milestones are not part of the charter text, which is THE contract between the IESG and the WG.
Since we don't have consensus on this topic within the IESG, it's just a nice-to-have, and up to the responsible AD ...

[Ballot block]
Thanks for addressing my BLOCK/COMMENT

One last point.
Please expand on what "will be investigated" mean in the following sentence:
  The mapping to existing protocols (such as the Constrained Application Protocol,
  CoAP) will be investigated.

[Ballot block]
It is not clear to me exactly what is meant by

  2. Produce "Minimal 6TiSCH Configuration" to define how to build a 6TiSCH
  network
  using the Routing Protocol for LLNs (RPL). This document will assume a static
  TSCH schedule, which can be either hardcoded, or learnt by a node when joining
  the network, possibly in a format as defined by work item 1.

This could be just describing how to configure and apply RPL in this context. Or it could be defining protocol extensions to RPL.

Could the charter make this clear, and if the second meaning was intended, could the charter make it clear that this WG will develop requirements, and that protocol extensions to RPL will be done in ROLL?

[Ballot comment]
  Channel-hopping improves reliability in front of narrow-band interference and
  multi-path fading.

s/in front of/in the presence of/

---

  Energy harvesting networks

I suspect you mean "Networks comprising energy harvesting nodes"
Your phrase somehow implies that the networks collect and deliver energy.

---

  the node is done joining a network.

Maybe "the node has joined a network"

---

In "Description of Working Group" I find it odd that 5 lines (out of 14) are devoted to describing what the WG might do later. I would cut that to just the first line of the paragraph.

---

Please make it clear whether the "Non-milestone work items" will result in published RFCs or not.

[Ballot comment]
1) (1st sentence) Low power or Low-power?  Roll definitely uses the later.

2) Is there a separate LLN protocol stack that is different than say an IP protocol stack?  Maybe you could r/LLN protocol stack/protocol stack

3) Not sure the following is needed because it sounds like advertising - just delete the sentence and merge the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs:

It inherits from long-standing industrial process control standards such as WirelessHART and ISA100.11a, while significantly improving reliability, determinism, and power comsumption.

4) There's a little redundancy in the following and it's not clear you really need to list the other wgs that might or might not be around:

The WG will interface with other IETF WGs, potentially including ROLL, 6Lo, CoRE, 6MAN, LWIG, and other appropriate groups in the IETF Internet, Routing and Security areas.

maybe:

The WG will interface with other appropriate groups in the IETF Internet, Routing and Security areas.

5) Never heard the term "umbrella networks" is it common term?

6) Is there any particular order of the work items? I.e., is the architecture document to completed first?

7) Probably worth noting that the non-milestone work items shouldn't affect the milestone work items.

[Ballot comment]
"The scope of the WG includes one or more LLNs..."

I think you mean "The extent of the problem space for the WG is one or more LLNs..."

[Ballot block]
-  "Initially, the WG will consider a framework to install a static schedule. In
  this case, a node's schedule remains unchanged after the node is done joining a
  network. The Routing Protocol for LLNs (RPL) is used on the resulting network."

Not sure what a framework is?
First of all, is this a management framework?
Then is this architecture + protocol + information model/data model?
In fact, I don't quite get how you plan to manage this network, and it seems that management is the key part.
For the dynamic schedules, obviously, but also for the static ones.
Along the same lines, what does "manage" mean in this sentence?

    1. Produce "Timeslot Management Methods and Formats" to describe how an entity
    can manage the TSCH schedule on a 6TiSCH node, and query timeslot information
    from that node. Metrics such as timeslot quality reports are in scope, but
    the actual bindings to transport operation are not.

Discussing quickly with Pascal Thubert, it seems that the WG wants to focus on an information model containing all the management requirements of a 6TiSCH node, and that mapping to existing protocols (COAP, CBOR, etc...) will be investigated.
This should be clearly explained.

[Ballot comment]
-6TiSCH or TSCH? What does 6TiSCH mean?

- I thought that the main use case for this WG was: bringing IP in the industrial automation LLN network.
Maybe this is what it meant by "Control loops in a wireless process control network, in which high reliability and a fully deterministic behavior are required."? Anyway, you should stress the industrial automation use cases somewhere in the charter.

- Editorial:
interesting selection of acronyms. You have "BackBone Routers (BBRs)", while you don't expand TDMA, for example

[Ballot comment]
I'm not asking these questions out of *any knowledge* of IEEE 802.15.4e *at all*, so if they are silly questions, please say so.

This version of the charter describes doing static scheduling, with an option to do dynamic scheduling if static scheduling goes well.

Is the static version useful on its own, if the working group doesn't deliver dynamic scheduling?

If dynamic scheduling is also delivered, is there any requirement for coexistence of the two modes in  a single network?

I do not understand why the tool is warning me that the announced initial review time hasn't elapsed yet.  If there's a mistake here, please let me know, but I'm assuming based on discussion during the Informal telechat that this is just a tools bug.