Subject: [6tisch] Minutes Webex 24 October 2014

From: Thomas Watteyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 17:46:08 -0800

All,

You will find the minutes of the last 6TiSCH interim call below (also at
https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/meetings/ and
https://www.ietf.org/meeting/interim/proceedings.html).

Reply with comments/suggestions. We will approve these minutes at the next
6TiSCH interim call.

Thomas

---

Minutes Webex 24 October 2014, 6TiSCH WG

Note: timestamps in PDT.
Connection details

   - Webex:
   https://ciscosales.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?ED=219615007&UID=481905242&PW=NZTRkNDAwOTE1&RT=MiMyMw%3D%3D
   - Etherpad:
   http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/6tisch?useMonospaceFont=true
   - Topic: 6TiSCH Weekly
   - Time: 8:00 am, Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco, GMT-07:00)
   - Meeting Number: 206 802 913
   - Meeting Password: sixtus
   - CCM: +14085256800x206802913

Resources

   - Webex recording:
   https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/lsr.php?RCID=b4029b074a00492fa1344929ac3cf8fd
   - Wiki: https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/meetings/wiki/141024_webex
   - Slides:
   https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/meetings/src/master/141024_webex/slides_141024_webex.ppt

Taking notes *(using Etherpad)*

   1. Pascal Thubert
   2. Xavi Vilajosana
   3. Thomas Watteyne

Present *(template)*

   1. Ariton Xhafa
   2. Diego Dujovne
   3. Guillaume Gaillard
   4. Giuseppe Piro
   5. Ines Robles
   6. Maria Rita Palattella
   7. Michael Richardson
   8. Nicola Accettura
   9. Pascal Thubert
   10. Pat Kinney
   11. Raghuram Sudhaakar
   12. Thomas Watteyne
   13. Xavi Vilajosana

Action Items

   - *Thomas* to update draft-ietf-6tisch-tsch by cut-off date.
   - *Pascal* and *Thomas* to talk to Ted about whether to push for
   6TiSCH-specific CoAP draft, or wait for generic constrained management
   solution.
   - *Xavi* to cite draft-thubert-6lo-rpl-nhc-02 in next revision of
   draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal
   - *Michael* to publish a revision of the security draft with a clear
   text describing the needs in terms of data representation elements so the
   6top data model can be updated.
   - *Michael* to publish a revision of the security draft with a clear
   text describing the needs in terms of data representation elements so the
   6top data model can be updated.

Agenda

   - Administrivia *[2min]*
      - Approval agenda
      - Approval minutes last call
   - IETF91 *[5min]*
      - meetecho remote presentation
      - draft agenda
   - draft-ietf-6tisch-tsch-02 publication *[2min]*
      - please review
   - wrapping up draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal *[15min]*
   - presentation draft-richardson-6tisch--security-6top-02 *[15min]*
      - RPL option status and update 6lo *[10min]*
   - RFC7322: RFC Style Guide *[5min]*
   - AOB *[5min]*

Minutes

   - *[08.05]* Meeting starts *[Chairs]*
      - *Pascal* starts recording
      - *Thomas* presents agenda
         - update on IETF91 and draft agenda
         - present 2 draft and its status/evolution
         - *Michael* will present security draft status
         - *Pascal* will present status of RPL option at 6lo
         - if time permits, RF7322 will be introduced.
      - *[08.08]* Administrivia *[Chairs]*
      - Approval agenda

      No issues raised. Agenda approved.

      - Approval minutes last call
      - No issues raised. Minutes last call approved.
      - *Thomas* There was a security call on Tuesday. Went through
      draft-richardson-6tisch--security-6top-03. It will be presented today.
   - *[08.12]* IETF91 *[Thomas]*
      - IETF91 agenda is final. Meeting is 9am in Hawaii, i.e. 8pm CET time
      same day.
      - Meetecho available. Remote presentations and remote attendance.
      - Recording and minutes will reflect remote participation.
      - *Michael* Visa's from 104 attendees from China have not been
      approved yet.
      - *Thomas* First time that every session is in meetecho.
      - For remote presenters, there will be tests to make sure everything
      works well.
      - This Monday is the cut-off date for draft submission. Authors are
      called to submit their drafts before Monday.
      - Monday is also cutoff for draft agenda.
      - Initial agenda for 6TiSCH WG meeting.
         - present latest changes on drafts
         - TSCH draft, 6top interface draft, and minimal
         - introduction to plugtest at 93rd IETF meeting, with help of
         ETSI. Renamed from plugfest to plugtest as it related to verification.
         - Rechartering discussion to define next steps (include dynamic
         scheduling, etc.)
         - Security: Michael will present a revision of his draft and then
         René has remarks

         Action: *Thomas* to update draft-ietf-6tisch-tsch by cut-off date.

         - Maria Rita volunteers to present TSCH draft
         - Xavi volunteers to present minimal and 6top interface drafts, if
         necessary
         - Both presenters will do it remotely.
      - *[08.19]* draft-ietf-6tisch-tsch-02 publication *[Thomas]*
      - version 02 published
      - follows the rewording proposed during the call
      - 3 issues still open:
         - http://tools.ietf.org/wg/6tisch/trac/ticket/25. Rewording
         proposal. Rene did not agree. There is a follow up at the ML.
         - an issue is opened to change mote to node as node is what we
         agreed.
         - *Pascal* what about term "LLN nodes"?
         - *Thomas* suggests to use term "LLN node" in first occurrence and
         follow with "node".
      - *Pascal* several draft are going to be sent to the IESG in
      November. The last call will be announced at IETF91 and then we will have
      an evaluation/call for consensus for 2 weeks before submitting.
      - List of drafts considered: TSCH, Minimal, 6top-interface, CoAP. We
      need to decide what we do with them.
      - *Thomas* what about architecture draft? What is the current status
      and what is the timeline for this draft.
      - *Thomas* Would there be a problem if we recharter without having
      finalized the architecture draft?
      - *Pascal* I do not see any specific problem.
      - *Thomas* what about the CoAP draft? what should we do? Wait for the
      COMAN activity with constrained RESTCOnf draft? or push for our
CoAP draft.
      - *Pascal* we have milestones with the IESG. We can delay the CoAP
      draft after recharter to see what is the progress of the RESTConf, etc.
      - *Raghuram* Agrees to wait.

      Action: *Pascal* and *Thomas* to talk to Ted about whether to push
      for 6TiSCH-specific CoAP draft, or wait for generic constrained
management
      solution.

      - *Michael* asks if there is a date for the ETSI event.
      - *Thomas* there is no specific date but it might be a couple of days
      before (or Monday) talking to IETF to see if this is possible. Target is
      July 2015 in Prague right before IETF93 is the target.
      - *Michael* the Contiki people planned to have a conference, hack
      fest right before. This might be a conflict.
      - *Thomas* the ETSI test event is not a long thing it is just a set
      of schedules of tests and people attend to their specific tests.
      - *Ariton* Regarding the interop. Are there going to be a set of
      scenarios?
      - *Thomas* yes. The plan is to develop the test scenarios and come
      out with a set of tests (end March)
      - *Ariton* there will not be certification on that event.
      - *Thomas* not sure. We need to check with ETSI.
      - The point is to make standard better. the outcome is to validate to
      our documents are correct and we are "optimal" in their design.
   - *[08.xx]* wrapping up draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal *[Xavi]*
      - change in the CCA option. Reflected in the drawing at the beginning
      of TX slot, timing before CCA. This is a clarification to follow exactly
      the standard
      - added the missing timing
      - open questions, need opinion
         - HbH header compression. Agreed last time to go to 6lo. Should
         not limit further extensions even at cost of additional byte?
         - what should minimal specify for security?
         - asking implementors if IE we are sending are enough?
      - *Pascal*: published draft-thubert-6lo-rpl-nhc-02
      - offers 3 possibilities:
         - (greedy) the one from NHC: consume 1/4 of NHC space (64
         possibilities used)
         - (conservative) don't change layout at all, enumeration in
         6LoWPAN NHC already, consume new header (but then need full
byte after it)
         (1 possibilities used, but extra byte)
         - (middle) idea from Carsten: limit the same to something the same
         as greedy, but add a byte when "error". Consumes 4 bits (~20
possibilities
         used, 1 extra byte when error)
      - *Thomas* what is an "error"?
      - *Pascal* forwarding error (O,F bits)
      - *Pascal* problem is that you might need to change packet length
      during forwarding
      - *Thomas* agreed that this is the draft to cite in minimal?

      Action: *Xavi* to cite draft-thubert-6lo-rpl-nhc-02 in next revision
      of draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal.

      - *[Xavi]* what should draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal contain in terms of
      security?
      - *Pascal* I do not see the need to say anything, RPL has its own
      security, any security that applies to other protocols apply to minimal.
      - *Michael* similarly, there must be L2 security, which we just
      inherit.
   - *[08.57]* presentation draft-richardson-6tisch--security-6top-02
   *[Michael]*
      - Missing text for security pieces in 6top
         - join controller provides a certificate for the node (500 bytes),
         node may issue a cert request.
         - OR (red line at the bottom) 802.15.9 key exchange, per peer
         keying using group key. Large shared secret like 32 bytes. Are they
         mutually exclusive?
      - security pieces for the 6top model. What do we need to configure
      specifically?
      - the join controller provides the certificate.
      - the security for the DTLS connection needs to be able to identify
      the used certificate and its location.
      - the certificate will be used by p2p exchange. Also there can be a
      group key shared by all nodes.

      Action: *Michael* to publish a revision of the security draft with a
      clear text describing the needs in terms of data representation
elements so
      the 6top data model can be updated.

      - With a PCE each node needs to have a secure relation with the PCE.
      - with P2P negotiation and minimal where IEs are exchanged, security
      is more complex as requires to secure this relation.
      - *Ariton* 15.4e includes several security fields that have a
      particular meaning. Would those fields have a different meaning when used
      in the context of 6TiSCH? What would be the impact of using or not using
      the MAC header.
      - *Thomas* the fields have the same meaning. What 6tisch defines is a
      key management protocol so certificates can be exchanged. This is a
      complement to the architecture and later the use of this security
      certificates is fully aligned with 15.4e std.

      Action: *Ariton* to send a mail to the ML asking clarification about
      whether IEEE802.15.4e fields have a different meaning when used in the
      context of 6TiSCH.

      - *[09.11]* RPL option status and update 6lo
      - Done at the previous minimal draft discussion.
   - RFC7322: RFC Style Guide
      - No time. Pushed to later call.
   - *[09.13]* Meeting ends
      - Next 6TiSCH call on 11/7, purpose is to go through material for
      IETF91 WG meeting.