Subject: [6tisch] A terminology issue in minimal-security: (6LBR) pledge

From: Mališa Vučinić <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 17:44:23 +0200

All,

With the latest developments on minimal-security-06, we have homogenized
the join protocol so that it equally applies to regular pledges and the
6LBR device. Essentially, 6LBR just sets some parameters differently in the
request, and it receives the keys, network prefix and PAN ID of the network
it should advertise. 6LBR join happens over a non-IEEE802.15.4 interface
that is out-of-scope of the document.

With that, depending on the role the pledge requests to play in the
network, we have non-6LBR pledges and the 6LBR pledge.

There are portions of text in the document that apply to: 1) 6LBR pledges
only; 2) non-6LBR pledges only; 3) both.

The terminology section was amended to state:

> The term "pledge", as used throughout the document, explicitly denotes
non-6LBR devices attempting to join over an IEEE 802.15.4 network interface.
> The device that attempts to join as the 6LBR of the network and does so
over another network interface is explicitly denoted as the "6LBR pledge".
> When the text equally applies to the pledge and the 6LBR pledge, the
"(6LBR) pledge" form is used.

This is a bit cumbersome and I am not too happy with it as it turned out
there are quite some places where the "(6LBR) pledge" form had to be used.
If you have a better idea, shout it out.

The commit updating the whole document to explicitly state what text refers
to what kind of a pledge is at:

https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security/commits/c14b803905d7

Mališa