IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e
charter-ietf-6tisch-02
Yes
(Brian Haberman)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Barry Leiba)
(Ben Campbell)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01-00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2016-01-18 for -01-00)
Unknown
I would like to see the related WGs specifically mentioned (not just a general reference to areas).
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -01-00)
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-00)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-00)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-00)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-00)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-01-21 for -01-00)
Unknown
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 IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-00)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-00)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-00)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-00)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-00)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-01-21 for -01-00)
Unknown
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 IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-00)
Unknown