Re: [Roll] Applicability Statements Documents -- industrial applications

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > We publish a refresher in August. Point is until we have more
    > deployments, we
    > can hardly do better than what we have.

    > In particular we cannot fill:

    > 4.2.  Layer-two features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
    > 4.2.1.  Need layer-2 expert here.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
    > 4.2.2.  Security functions provided by layer-2.  . . . . . . . 28
    > 4.2.3.  6LowPAN options assumed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
    > 4.2.4.  MLE and other things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Then I don't see how you can have a specification that be implemented.
Do you truly have no layer-2 security, or you just don't know what it is?

If you are targetting more than one layer-2, then you are approaching the
applicability statements wrong...  If you say here, "this applies to
[WirelessHART] and [ISA100], each of which specifies security mechanisms X
and Y", then you've said enough.

    > My suggestion is to drop that section and publish what we have as an
    > informational RFC.

I don't think that this is going to fly with the IESG.
You might as well wait then.

    > If 6TiSCH is formed, then we will have better information there to make a
    > refined applicability statement for RPL over that particular MAC, which
    > is
    > today the industrial LLN of choice.


This is why I asked if 6tisch should adopt this document.


--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/