1. 7 October 2016 Webex IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e Chairs:
Pascal Thubert
Thomas Watteyne
Etherpad for minutes:

2. Note Well
This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in BCP 79; please read it carefully.
The brief summary:
By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes.
If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write, say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent applications, you need to disclose that fact.
You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and publicly archived.
For further information, talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or review the following:
BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process)
BCP 25 (on the Working Group processes)
BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust)
BCP 79 (on Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF) 2 2

3. Reminder: Minutes are taken. This meeting is recorded
Reminder: Minutes are taken * This meeting is recorded ** Presence is logged ***
* Scribe; please contribute online to the minutes at
** Recordings and Minutes are public and may be subject to discovery in the event of litigation.
*** From the Webex login 3 3 3 3

4. Agenda Administrivia [2min] IETF Update (chairs) [5min]
Agenda bashing
Approval minutes from last meeting
IETF Update (chairs) [5min]
Meeting time, template, agenda
Update on Security [Michael] [5min]
Update on 6top [Thomas] [20min]
Next steps for SF0 [Pascal] [30min]
AOB [1min] 4 4 4 4 4

5. Administrivia

6. Admin is trivia
Approval Agenda
Approval minutes 6 6 6 6

7. Quick summary by Pascal?
Meeting 9 September 2016
Minutes at ietf-coord/current/msg00851.html
Quick summary by Pascal?

8. IETF Update

9. IETF update
Minimal draft: Suresh in the middle of the AD evaluation review;
expecting update mail soon (like today)
LPWAN approved at IESG internal review
6LoRH progressing smoothly at IESG
specification required’ may also require designated  IETF expert review
Routing dispacth at telechat on 10/27
2 drafts in adoption call at 6lo (please participate!)
draft-hong-6lo-use-cases
draft-sarikaya-6lo-ap-nd 9 9 9 9

10. Update on security
Michael Richardson

11. Update on 6top
Thomas Watteyne, all

12. Proposed Methodology Tickets capture the proposal
A thread is started on ML
Bug scrub during interim:
Go through list of issues
agree on what to do
Results published on ML, 48h period to disagree
If consensus:
Results captured in ticket
Ticket reassigned to editor
Editor fixes in draft
When draft published, ticket closed
5/29/2018

13. Overview
assigned&status=reopened&component=6top-protocol 13 13 13 13

14. Ticket #43 - 6P CLEAR command should cause both node to clear cells
In 02#section-4.3.6:
Clearing the Schedule
When a 6P CLEAR command is issued from node A to node B, both nodes A
and B MUST remove all the cells scheduled between them. That is,
node A MUST remove all transmit and receive cells with node B, and
node B MUST remove all transmit and receive cells with node A. In a
6P CLEAR command, the generation counters GAB and GBA MUST NOT be
checked. That is, their value is "don't care". In particular, even
if a schedule generation mismatch is detected, it MUST NOT cause the
transaction to abort.
 OK to close? 14 14 14 14

15. Ticket #45 - details missing on error codes
[Tengfei] error codes not detailed enough. What does RC_ERROR mean?
[Dale] exact error code returned can be implementation specific. [light disagreement from Qin and Xavi]
[Tengfei] what does "reset a transaction" mean? [response from Xavi]
[Tengfei] don't use RC_ERR directly in text 15 15 15 15

16. Ticket #45 - details missing on error codes
Proposal 1:
About RC_ERROR: don’t have the draft return that error code returned, it’s too generic
Only a single 6P Transaction between two neighbors, in a given
direction, can take place at the same time. That is, a node MUST NOT
issue a new 6P Request to a given neighbor before having received the
6P Response for a previous request to that neighbor. The only
exception to this rule is when the previous 6P Transaction has timed
out. If a node receives a 6P Request from a given neighbor before
having sent the 6P Response to the previous 6P Request from that
neighbor, it MUST send back a 6P Response with a return code of
RC_ERR.
 Change for RC_ERR_RESET? A new error code? 16 16 16 16

17. Ticket #45 - details missing on error codes
Proposal 2:
In case the receiver of a 6top request fails during a 6P Transaction
and is unable to complete it, it SHOULD reply to that request with a
6P Response with return code RC_ERR_RESET. Upon receiving this 6top
reply, the initiator of the 6P Transaction MUST consider the 6P
Transaction as failed.
Per RFC793:
Reset Generation
As a general rule, reset (RST) must be sent whenever a segment arrives
which apparently is not intended for the current connection. A reset
must not be sent if it is not clear that this is the case.
Proposal: add this text in draft? 17 17 17 17

18. Ticket #46 - add LinkOptions flags to 6P messages
Proposal: add a bitmap of flags to a 6P ADD command so that a node can schedule both TX and RX cells to its neighbor, possibly shared.
Question: where
At beginning of each 6P cell format? ( 6top-protocol-02#section-4.2.5)
At beginning of just the 6P ADD ( 6top-protocol-02#section-4.2.6)
Clarifications
What is the reference for RX or TX? 18 18 18 18

19. Next steps for SF0
Pascal, all

20. ISSUE management A number of issues discussed at 10/23 interim
Pascal’s understanding was
Diego starts threads and
Pascal enters issues from threads
Status: threads not started 20 20 20 20

21. ISSUES Cell allocation Use of shared cells, flexibility
Timeout calculation
Use of acronyms? Use of metadata
Outband bandwidth calculation
the term bandwidth is confusing. Is it a number of packets per second? per frame? a number of cells?
Is using bandwidth+PDR the right way? Wouldn’t cells me simpler? 21 21 21 21

22. Evaluation SF0 is critical to the performance of 6TiSCH (~OF in RPL)
We need to find a balance between:
It’s simple
It performs reasonably well
The draft must contain elements that show that “it works”
Difference between std track and experimental
“Performance Evaluation” section
Simulations (e.g. on 6TiSCH simulator
Experimentation (e.g. on OpenWSN
Analysis?
That could contain a “call for performance evaluation” in some version 22 22 22 22

23. AOB ?

24. draft-satish-6tisch-6top-sf1-02
Published Aug 3
Do authors want to present at interim call? At IETF97? 24 24 24 24

25. next webex Thomas cannot attend Oct 21 Proposal: move to oct 28? 25 25

26. Thank you!