Subject: [6tsch] minutes WebEx 5 April 2013

From: Thomas Watteyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 17:00:02 -0700

All,

You will find the minutes of the yesterday's webex below. Please fix
anything I might have missed directly in the e-mail and reply.

Thomas

-----

Note: timestamps in PDT.

Present (alphabetically)
------------------------

* Alfredo Grieco
* Dominique Barthel
* Maria Rita Palattella
* Pascal Thubert
* Qin Wang
* Ted Lemon
* Thomas Watteyne
* Tina Tsou
* Tom Phinney
* Xavi Vilajosana

Agenda
------

* update work on PANA [Yoshihiro] [5min]
* update work on NSIS [Xavi, John] [5min]
* use cases and problem statement: [30min]
    * summary ML
    * discussion "Problem statement"
    * review remaining items from slide deck
* list of achievable goals "what needs to be done that does not exist
already?"
    * requirements document
    * architecture document
    * 6tus "foundation" layer
    * optimized multipath hard tracks
    * distributed multipath soft tracks
    * simple distributed routing
    * interoperation event
* draft charter: next steps? [5min]

Minutes
-------

* [08.04] meeting starts
* Yoshihiro could not make it to the call, but sends the following update by
  e-mail (see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tsch/current/msg00422.html)
  > Regarding "update work on PANA" part, 6 contributors have joined to
  > develop a 6TSCH security architecture based on PANA. Once TOC is agreed,
  > contributors will start working on detailed text.
  >
  > The latest draft being edited is available at:
  > https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/draft-ohba-6tsch-security/src
  >
  > Any comments are appreciated.
  >
* [08.06] work on NSIS [Xavi]
    * Together with John, Xavi has written a document on the applicability
of
      NSIS for 6TSCH networks.
    * Will share document on ML soon.
    * NSIS can be useable for soft reservation between nodes in the network.
    * We can create extension if needed.
    * Not clear whether can be used for PCE-to-node communication.
    * [Pascal] We need to discuss whether NSIS can really be used for PCE
      to mote communication.
    * [Pascal] Carsten Borrmann suggested in ML that NSIS is too
      complicated to be implemented in motes
      (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tsch/current/msg00326.html
).
    * [Qin] if we want to use NSIS also for PCE to mote, then motes need to
      implement NSIS in all cases.
    * [Xavi] If we go that route, yes.
    * [Thomas] This is a very first announcement of the work by Xavi and
       John. Let's wait for the document to appear of the ML and discuss on
ML.
* [08.10] Problem statement [Pascal]
    * Pascal presents slides [TODO Thomas: add link]
    * Optimized Multipath hard tracks
        * Optimized => PCE
        * Allocation may be handled by a tier
        * [Thomas] What's the meaning of IHM?
        * [Pascal] This is a typo. Equivalent to GUI.
        * [Pascal] Reducing the amount of copper wiring in a car
            reduces its weight, and has a real impact on mileage.
    * Distributed Routing, soft tracks
        * Reservation => RSVP or NSIS
        * [Pascal] We need to highlight a very clear use case for this.
        * [Thomas] Agreed that we need to identify use case. Yet let's
          not consider this of secondary importance.
    * Distributed Routing (best effort)
        * Distributed => RPL
        * [Qin] It's a bit unclear what this use case it.
        * [Thomas] We can consider this case for:
            * Absolute minimal set of things you need to do to interoperate
              (shared slots)
            * used when nodes are so constrained that can not implement
              any form of reservation
            * used as fallback when all rest goes wrong
            * used when bootstrapping network
    * Mobility (best effort)
        * Two cases: mobile cranes and mobile worker
        * [Pascal] Can we consider traffic in mobile worker case to be
           "best effort"?
        * [Dominique] Yes.
    * Dynamic slot allocation
        * Used for bursty traffic
        * [Thomas] A bit open-ended. Multiple solutions can be found.
          Maybe roll into "Distributed Routing (best effort)" case?
    * Backbone
        * renumbering not needed when nodes transition from one LLN to
another
    * Large/long mesh
        * [Dominique] Clarification: large akin city-wide, long akin
          "linear" topology
        * [Tom] Does this not fall into backbone case?
        * [Thomas] Agreed. Asnwer for city-wide deployments could be
          architecture recommendation to use multiple island of 100s nodes
          interconnected by backbone.
        * [Pascal] Agreed, we don't need protocolar answer to this.
    * Coexistence with legacy
        * Agreed that sync various standards (ISA100.11a, WirelessHART) is
          no-goal
* [08.57] draft charter [Thomas]
    * Wrote a 1.5p very first draft charter
    * Idea is to serve as a basis for discussion
    * With lots of work already done by group, will probably be painless to
      finalize.
    * Will post to mailing list to start discussion
    * We can cover this in next call.
* [09.02] Next steps
    * [Pascal] Put draft charter in bitbucket?
    * [Thomas] Yes. But charter is a very short document. Maybe we need
       a (longer) requirements document?
    * [Pascal] Sounds like a plan.
* [09.05] meeting ends