I've reviewed draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-19. Thank you to the authors and the WG for considering the input from my earlier reviews and careful revision of the document to address that input.
In general, I think the document is now almost ready for publication. The major points from my review of -17 have been addressed.
I do have a few minor points for the authors and WG to consider:
Does the WG have consensus that IPv6 address selection, prefix advertisement, and the details of ND need not be addressed in this document?
I don't see a default value for EB_PERIOD defined anywhere. Is such a definition needed?
The EB_PERIOD determines the join time and impacts energy consumption. The value is a trade-off of this two elements according to the network administrator, as shorter the EB period more energy is used but sooner the nodes join the network. This number does not affect different vendor nodes aiming to join the same network (in terms of inter-operability). For us this is more a network policy, IMHO defining a default value would not fit most of the cases.
Is it necessary for all devices in a network to use the same value EB_PERIOD?
If so, how is that value communicated or configured in all devices?
Could the document recommend a value?
Section 5.2 requires implementation of RPL non-storing mode and recommends implementation of storing mode. How does a node know whether RPL is being used in non-storing or storing mode?
This is detected by the MOP field in the DIO. When a DIO is received the MOP is checked. According to RF6550
Mode of Operation (MOP): The Mode of Operation (MOP) field identifies
the mode of operation of the RPL Instance as administratively
provisioned at and distributed by the DODAG root. All nodes
who join the DODAG must be able to honor the MOP in order to
fully participate as a router, or else they must only join as a
leaf. MOP is encoded as in the figure below: