IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e
charter-ietf-6tisch-02
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01-00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
Alvaro Retana Yes
I would like to see the related WGs specifically mentioned (not just a general reference to areas).
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) Yes
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
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
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
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:-)
(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection