Clone wiki

meetings / 150109_webex

Minutes, 09 January 2015 interim, 6TiSCH WG

Note: timestamps in PST.

Connection details


Taking notes (using Etherpad)

  1. Xavi Vilajosana
  2. Thomas Watteyne

Present (alphabetically)

  1. Ana ???
  2. Deji Chen
  3. Diego Dujovne
  4. Dominique Barthel
  5. Guillaume Gaillard
  6. Kris Pister
  7. Malisa Vucinic
  8. Maria Rita Palattella
  9. Michael Richardson
  10. Pat Kinney
  11. Patrick Wetterwald
  12. Paul ???
  13. Pascal Thubert
  14. Pouria Zand
  15. Rene Struik
  16. Thomas Watteyne
  17. Xavi Vilajosana

Action Items

  • Chairs to start WGLC on CoAP draft on ML on Monday.
  • all to discuss new terminology draft on ML, by 1/16.
  • Maria Rita to publish current version of terminology draft.


Posted on 12/19/2014, see

  • Administrivia [2min]
    • Approval agenda
    • Approval minutes last call
  • status minimal draft {10min]
  • summary of sec talks [10min]
  • open mike in rechartering [35min]
  • AOB [1min]


  • [08.05] Meeting starts
    • recording starts
  • [08.07] Administrivia
    • Approval agenda

      No issues raised. Agenda approved.

    • Approval minutes last call

      No issues raised. Minutes approved.

    • updates
      • tsch draft completed and moved to the IESG for publication
      • validation of structural issues
      • security call this Tuesday
  • _[08.10]_status minimal draft
    • [Pascal] completed last call for minimal.
    • Changes: state that we are not using the beacon to synchronize, sync is only achieved by data packets, beacons are not used to synchronize
    • Question: what is the coverage of the minimal draft in terms of security?
      • minimal draft should not address all the lifetime of a device, so it can be assumed that minimal starts after the key is known.
    • Issue on how to compress the routing headers.
      • we do not have any draft that we can point to indicating how to compress. We depend on other WG that need to adopt that proposals.
    • Options for the routing header:
      • delay minimal
      • use the default current mechanism, i.e. not compressing the RPL extension headers.
    • [Xavi] I believe we should ship without the compression.
    • [Thomas] Lean towards shipping without compression.
    • [Michael] +1
    • [Diego] +1
    • [Michael] Question is: how do we turn compression on if we add compression afterwards. We need to make sure that it is acceptable that nodes running future compression are backward compatible with current approach and in the other way, legacy nodes not accepting new compression would require the overall network to work without compression. we need to make sure this is acceptable.
    • [Michael] Solution might be to ship now as experimental, collect results from plugtest, finalize the compression work, and ship again in standards track.
    • [Thomas] we need to ask the AD and ETSI about interop testing. One of the outcomes is feedback to make standard better. What you are proposing fits well to the interop so we obtain that feedback.
    • [Pascal] what do others think

      Consensus on the call than minimal should be published now as experimental

    • [Pascal] summary about RPI/RH3 discussions
      • talk on Monday to find a solution to compressing the RPL packets
      • 3 possible outcomes:
      • no changes to existing specs
      • only reset the FL to 0 inside the LLN. FL cannot be used for RPI
      • free use of the FL. as long as does not goes out of the LLN.
      • 6man is opposed to use the FL to carry RPL information
    • [Thomas] There will be an intern meeting cross-group call in a couple of weeks on RPI/RH3
  • [08:37] last call for the CoAP draft.

    Action item: Chairs to start WGLC on CoAP draft on ML on Monday.

  • [8:38] last call for the terminology draft.

    Action item: all to discuss new terminology draft on ML, by 1/16.

    • [Rene] proposes to publish current version and get the updates on the current version.

      Action item: Maria Rita to publish current version of terminology draft.

    • [Thomas] points that terminology draft should be evolving and keep it open until we get to the end of the work on the WG.
    • [Maria Rita] agrees on having concepts there that eventually will evolve or will be removed. This is part of the evolution of the document.
  • _[08.48]_summary of security discussions
    • [Rene] 3 actions items at the call
      • review the terminology draft.
      • provide a suggestion of text for the architecture draft. Document as regards to the join process. Not consensus yet, provides technical discussion.
      • send a draft document that includes consideration about security aspects.
  • [08.54]_open mike in rechartering [35min]_
    • concluded that we need to keep the charter the way it is now.
    • recharter discussion at the next ietf in dallas
    • Potentinal new items
      • Join process
      • Dynamic scheduling
      • OTF
      • Chunks appropiation
      • DetNet/tracks
    • [Thomas] We need to add security as a very important item.
    • [Michael] Ongoing security of the network.
    • [Pascal] Security validation along the lifetime of the network. maintenance of the security in the network.
    • [Thomas] We should be better involve other groups, who can use the (generic) solution we are designing.
    • [Thomas] What are the expectations from the WG? Do we need to start talking in the ML and in the group meetings?
    • [Xavi] Management is not clear in the context of 6TiSCH. Not clear what protocols and how the specific management of TSCH networks will be handled.
    • [Guillaume] Accepts to draft some points to summarize the management problems.
  • [09.05]_AOB [1min]_
    • [Thomas] Next call scheduled 23 January 2015 8am PST
    • [Thomas] Ongoing discussion on ML about having the call one hour earlies, please discuss on ML.

      No other business raised.

  • [09.11] Meeting ends