[6lowpan] Document in my opinion not ready for publication -- Re: WG last call on Routing Requirements draft
JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com> Thu, 03 September 2009 13:39 UTC
Return-Path: <jvasseur@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: 6lowpan@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowpan@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78D313A67F7 for <6lowpan@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 06:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.928, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NU6fM2err+aa for <6lowpan@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 06:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46FFF3A67A1 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 06:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArQAAA9kn0qQ/uCKe2dsb2JhbACCJTGYZgEBFiQGphCIQQGQLgWEG4Fc
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.44,325,1249257600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="48562525"
Received: from ams-dkim-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.138]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Sep 2009 13:38:25 +0000
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n83DcPV1024432; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 15:38:25 +0200
Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n83DcPD8001227; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 13:38:25 GMT
Received: from xfe-ams-101.cisco.com ([144.254.231.93]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 3 Sep 2009 15:38:26 +0200
Received: from ams-jvasseur-8712.cisco.com ([10.55.201.131]) by xfe-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 3 Sep 2009 15:38:25 +0200
Message-Id: <0F50DCD2-ADE3-4994-88E4-01BF2692FF38@cisco.com>
From: JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>
To: Geoff Mulligan <geoff@mulligan.com>, 6lowpan <6lowpan@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <1251850883.20077.719.camel@dellx1>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-124-947480932"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:38:24 +0200
References: <1251850883.20077.719.camel@dellx1>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Sep 2009 13:38:25.0359 (UTC) FILETIME=[CFEF25F0:01CA2C9B]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=10619; t=1251985105; x=1252849105; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com; z=From:=20JP=20Vasseur=20<jvasseur@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Document=20in=20my=20opinion=20not=20ready=20fo r=20publication=20--=20Re=3A=20[6lowpan]=20WG=20last=20call= 20on=20Routing=20Requirements=20draft |Sender:=20; bh=05WGVyHcME+uGYEjy/S0nv90xrkOzcx5gzOp6w2JFHQ=; b=QPQ7EihyxPguqkQ7Y4dBdnug8p0wGpcR+l1pdphP8HeE9ImzMgUqO0D7x9 Sl3EmyKD5i0Tv7NdbKBVPu1yMGqwyad9/WJx3qopO5toAfewv721xDJnMUrL lKgKyE3Z63;
Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; );
Subject: [6lowpan] Document in my opinion not ready for publication -- Re: WG last call on Routing Requirements draft
X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowpan>
List-Post: <mailto:6lowpan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:39:22 -0000
Dear all, I do believe that this document is NOT ready for publication. The fundamental issue has to do with what is called "6LoWPAN Routing" and this not just a terminology issue but an architectural and procedural issue. In this document, several characteristics of the issues and challenges of routing in constrained and loosy environments are listed, nothing new to what is done in the ROLL Working Group. You mention that IP routing and what is referred to as Mesh-Under Routing can be used in such environment. So what is the aim of this document ? 1) Is it to provide routing requirement for L3 (route over) ? 2) Is it to provide routing requirement for L2 (mesh under) ? If 1), then you may want to see with the ROLL WG whether some of the data could be used for this WG that is not already covered by the existing routing requirements documents. If 2), what is the intent of the document since we do not rightly (at the IETF) intend to specify a L2 "routing" protocol for a specific media such as 802.15.4. I could provide lengthy comments but that figure 2 summarizes most my concerns: Figure 1 shows the place of 6LoWPAN routing in the entire network stack. +-----------------------------+ +-----------------------------+ | Application Layer | | Application Layer | +-----------------------------+ +-----------------------------+ | Transport Layer (TCP/UDP) | | Transport Layer (TCP/UDP) | +-----------------------------+ +-----------------------------+ | Network Layer (IPv6) | | Network +---------+ | +-----------------------------+ | Layer | Routing | | | 6LoWPAN +---------+ | | (IPv6) +---------+ | | Adaptation | Routing*| | +-----------------------------+ | Layer +---------+ | | 6LoWPAN Adaptation Layer | +-----------------------------+ +-----------------------------+ | IEEE 802.15.4 (MAC) | | IEEE 802.15.4 (MAC) | +-----------------------------+ +-----------------------------+ | IEEE 802.15.4 (PHY) | | IEEE 802.15.4 (PHY) | +-----------------------------+ +-----------------------------+ * Here, 'Routing' is not equivalent to IP routing, but includes the functionalities of path computation and forwarding under the IP layer. Figure 1: Mesh Under (left) and Route Over routing (right) The right part is what we do at the IETF, in ROLL. The left part looks like a new "architecture" to me, an adaptation layer performing routing. I guess that you in fact mean routing at the MAC layer, in which case, you may want to discuss it with IEEE. Just another example: "When a 6LoWPAN follows the Mesh Under configuration, the LoWPAN Edge Router (ER) is the only IPv6 router in the 6LoWPAN (see Figure 3). This means that the IPv6 link-local scope includes all nodes in the LoWPAN. For this, a Mesh Under mechanism MUST be provided to support multi-hop transmission." What is this normative "MUST" aimed at ? Furthermore there are many other issues with the document but the statements above should hopefully help to show that the document should not be published. I know that this is informational, still we need to be cautious of what we publish as RFCs. Thanks. JP. On Sep 2, 2009, at 2:21 AM, Geoff Mulligan wrote: > Folks, > This note formally starts the WG Last Call for comments on > draft-ietf-6lowpan-routing-requirements-04.txt, "Problem Statement and > Requirements for 6LoWPAN Routing". > > The document can be found at: > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-6lowpan-routing-requirements-04.txt > > The document is intended to be submitted by this Working Group to the > IESG for publication as an Informational Document. > > Please review the document carefully (one last time), and send your > comments to the 6lowpan list. Please also indicate in your response > whether or not you think this document is ready to go to the IESG. > > This Last Call will end on Thursday 1 October 2009 at 2359 UTC. > > Thanks, > Geoff & Carsten > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > 6lowpan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
- [6lowpan] WG last call on Routing Requirements dr… Geoff Mulligan
- Re: [6lowpan] WG last call on Routing Requirement… Daniel Park
- Re: [6lowpan] WG last call on Routing Requirement… Carl Williams
- Re: [6lowpan] WG last call on Routing Requirement… 김형준
- Re: [6lowpan] WG last call on Routing Requirement… Jung-Soo Park
- Re: [6lowpan] WG last call on Routing Requirement… Robert Assimiti
- Re: [6lowpan] WG last call on Routing Requirement… S.M.Saif Shams
- Re: [6lowpan] WG last call on Routing Requirement… Ki-Hyung Kim (김기형)
- Re: [6lowpan] WG last call on Routing Requirement… Hamid Mukhtar
- [6lowpan] Document in my opinion not ready for pu… JP Vasseur
- Re: [6lowpan] WG last call on Routing Requirement… josep paradells