Re: [Roll] proposal for common table of contents for applicability statements
Anders Brandt <Anders_Brandt@sigmadesigns.com> Wed, 16 May 2012 08:41 UTC
Return-Path: <Anders_Brandt@sigmadesigns.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B3E521F870F for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2012 01:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FOvRPvKpwXjs for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2012 01:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maildk.sigmadesigns.com (maildk.sigmadesigns.com [195.215.56.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98B7721F8711 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 May 2012 01:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anders Brandt <Anders_Brandt@sigmadesigns.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "roll@ietf.org" <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] proposal for common table of contents for applicability statements
Thread-Index: AQHNMsJyaj9Nyv35dEeh8V08XPl0uJbMGDVA
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 08:41:13 +0000
Message-ID: <03F31C213F2C6941BFDDBB4336E9E6CD0ABE8F25@cph-ex1>
References: <20120430114209.21250.82110.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <18151.1335822136@marajade.sandelman.ca> <BD8E8F5A-E564-49C9-96D0-55B76DA23AB0@cisco.com> <10134.1337103877@marajade.sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <10134.1337103877@marajade.sandelman.ca>
Accept-Language: en-US, da-DK
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.10.79]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-FEAS-SYSTEM-WL: anders_brandt@sigmadesigns.com
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 16 May 2012 19:37:12 -0700
Subject: Re: [Roll] proposal for common table of contents for applicability statements
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 08:41:20 -0000
Hi Michael > I thought we had a third applicability statement as an independant draft, > but I couldn't find one. We should have a building/home applicability > statement. It is here http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-building-01 In its current state it is more like a problem statement... RPL P2P is in its final stages and solves most of the issues that were addressed in this draft. Thus, it is about time to get it revived. I will try to get this done before the cutoff date but cannot promise. Thanks, Anders > -----Original Message----- > From: roll-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Michael Richardson > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 19:45 > To: roll@ietf.org > Subject: [Roll] proposal for common table of contents for applicability > statements > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Here is the table of contents from each of the applicability statements. > I thought we had a third applicability statement as an independant draft, > but I couldn't find one. We should have a building/home applicability > statement. > > I feel that these two applicability statements are over broad, and that > each should be split into two or three statements. In particular, I > think that Energy-Constrained and Energy-Rich networks should be split into > different documents as they have vastly different requirements. > It may be that there is a further split for networks that are dense > (urban) vs those that are less dense (suburban or rural). > > A major purpose of these documents is to permit a utility (etc.) to be able to > write an RFP to procure equipment from multiple vendors that can > interoperate. (there are NAFTA, GATT, etc. that governments needs to > comply to, which an RFC easily satisfies) > > > As such, there needs to be enough information as to the profile of RPL to be > deployed (to each area), such that a vendor can actually implement > something definite. > > I also feel that these document spend too much time on explaining what > RPL is (and frankly they they do a really good, succint job at it, so I hate to > lose that text, but I don't think it needs to be repeated) > > What I'd like to do (and I invite you to reply inline, keeping just this text, > and +1 each part seperately) > > 1) is to synchronize these two documents' table of contents. > > 2) discuss adopting draft-phinney as a WG document! > > 3) make sure that we are also detailing security and routing issues > properly, and yes, we need to have statments like: > "Metering networks using ZigBee FOOBAR MUST in layer-2 have > security BAZ enabled in order that RPL messages will be secured." > or: > "This statement applies to using RPL as the MESH over network on > 802.15.4 technology with the 6LowPAN defined nd-18 including RFC6282 > HC" > > The applicability statement is not the place to be general. > Let's be specific, and in doing so, let's be succinct. > > > draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-05.txt: > 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 > 1.1. Electric Metering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 > 1.2. Gas and Water Metering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 > 1.3. Routing Protocol for LLNs (RPL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 > 1.4. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 > 2. Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 > 2.1. Network Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 > 2.1.1. Electric Meter Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 > 2.1.2. Energy-Constrained Network Infrastructure . . . . . . 6 > 2.2. Traffic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 > 2.2.1. Smart Metering Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 > 2.2.2. Distribution Automation Communication . . . . . . . . 8 > 2.2.3. Emerging Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 > 3. Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 8 > 4. RPL Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 > 4.1. RPL Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 > 4.1.1. RPL Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 > 4.1.2. Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 > 4.1.3. DAO Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 > 4.1.4. Path Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 > 4.1.5. Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 > 4.1.6. DODAG Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 > 4.1.7. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 > 4.1.8. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 > 4.1.9. P2P communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 > 4.2. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . . 12 > 4.2.1. Trickle Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 > 4.2.2. Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 > 5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 > 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 > 7. Other Related Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 > 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 > 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 > 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 > 10.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 > 10.2. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 > Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 > > > draft-phinney-rpl-industrial-applicability-00: > 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 > 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 > 3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 > 3.1. Deployment scenarii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 > 3.2. Applications and Traffic classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 > 3.3. RPL applicability matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 > 4. Characterization of communication flows in IACS wireless > networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 > 4.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 > 4.2. Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm . . . . . . . . . 13 > 4.3. Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) communication > paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 > 4.4. Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm . . . . . . . . 15 > 4.5. Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm . . . . . 16 > 4.6. Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast . . . . . . 17 > 4.7. RPL applicability per communication paradigm . . . . . . . 18 > 5. RPL profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 > 5.1. Use for process control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 > 5.2. RPL features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 > 5.2.1. Storing vs. non-storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 > 5.2.2. DAO policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 > 5.2.3. Path metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 > 5.2.4. Objective functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 > 5.2.5. DODAG repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 > 5.2.6. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 > 5.3. RPL options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 > 5.4. Recommended configuration defaults and ranges . . . . . . 22 > 5.4.1. Trickle parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 > 5.4.2. Other parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 > 5.4.3. Additional configuration recommendations . . . . . . . 23 > 6. Other related protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 > 7. Manageability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 > 8. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 > 9. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 > 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 > 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 > 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 > 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 > 11.3. External Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 > Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 > > - -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works > IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) > > iQCVAwUBT7KWBIqHRg3pndX9AQKEDgP/ddKMasN7jRNVl6ZGAtCchSYeV/0o > USQ0 > Gn8FSRCbacZosnchjVDuDz5MMV4MToC8BPgBh2n0qW4jTpYK8KTPiwhGcJUg > kwtv > n1xmEJj6d9kftudUCFfmh2WlrXaPWlYdndM/avulkGK8mOVYphHYrtxf4nbyj1 > HV > Y3ChARZ5nUM= > =8qRA > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
- [Roll] proposal for common table of contents for … Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] proposal for common table of contents … Anders Brandt
- Re: [Roll] proposal for common table of contents … Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] proposal for common table of contents … Anders Brandt
- Re: [Roll] proposal for common table of contents … Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] proposal for common table of contents … Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [Roll] proposal for common table of contents … Michael Richardson