6TSCH Webex 07/05/2013

Reminder: This call is recorded the record is public Minutes are taken and published to the ML

Agenda Approval minutes last call[1min] Update presentation esIoT[1min] draft-ohba-6tsch-security-00[10min] ? Description of PCE ?[10min] Simulator[10min] Preparing for the BOF[25min] Re-organization Bitbucket[2min] AOB[1min]

Approval minutes last call

Update presentation esIoT Maria-Rita Palattella

Thank You !

simulator Xavi Vilajosana

Work on PCE JP Vasseur

Preparing for the BOF

Preliminary Schedule

RFC5434 [1/4]: Goals Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF) Goal: demonstrating that the community has agreement that: –there is a problem that needs solving –IETF is the right group –critical mass of participants willing to work on the problem –scope is well defined and understood What the WG will work on (and what it won't) What the deliverables are –WG has a reasonable probability of having success completing the deliverables in its charter in a timely fashion

RFC5434 [2/4]: Preparing Allows ADs (and others) to: –gauge how much interest there really is –gauge how well the problem statement has been scoped –gauge agreement on the problem statement –Answer "should a WG with the following charter be formed?” 2-4 weeks before an IETF the focus (on the ML) should be on identifying areas of agreement and areas of disagreement. Produce a consensus charter. Decide what questions will be asked during the BOF Make sure everyone understands what is expected of them (including presenters)

RFC5434 [3/4]: Pb. Statement A key issue is understanding (and finding consensus on) the real, underlying problem is that the customer, operator, or deployer of a technology has and that the WG needs to address. The best description and understanding of an actual problem usually comes from the customer, operator, or deployer of a technology.

RFC5434 [4/4]: At the BOF Agenda tightly focused on supporting the need for the WG Making the case that the group has identified a clearly-scoped charter and has agreement on what the set of deliverables should be. Questions to the audience are possible (to establish areas of consensus and identifying areas where additional work is needed): –Is there support to form a WG with the following charter? –Does the community think that the problem statement is clear, well- scoped, solvable, and useful to solve? –Can I see a show of hands of folk willing to review documents (or comment on the mailing list)? –Who would be willing to serve as an editor for the following document(s)? –How many people feel that a WG should not be formed? Avoid: –Too much discussion/focus on solutions –presentations on specific solutions

Draft Agenda (1.5h) problem statement [30min] –what is IEEE e TSCH? (a key to deterministism and scalability) –what is missing? (mostly the cement as opposed ot the building blocks) –Why is this a problem? (multiple proprietary solutions, costly, limited scope) –Status of 6TSCH group discussion of the charter [30min] –background and introduction (existing work demonstrates feasibility) –description of WG (we have participants skilled in the art) –work items (we reuse as much as we can from existing IETF work) –non-milestone work items (we demonstrate our will to coexist within regulations) –external work to other WG (6MAN, PCE, ROLL?) Overview of drafts [30min] –draft-watteyne-6tsch-tsch-lln-context –draft-thubert-6tsch-architecture –draft-palattella-6tsch-terminology –draft-wang-6tsch-6tus –draft-vilajosana-6tsch-basic –draft-ohba-6tsch-security

Last Steps Renaming 6tus? Updating architecture draft –PCE –Use cases for PCE/BBR connection Outstanding revision drafts? –7/15 I-D cutoff date

Re-organizing Bitbucket Thomas Watteyne

Proposal: merge ietf86-orlando into meeting (same with Berlin)

Any Other Business