Re: [Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter

Thanks Peter, Ines,

The updated charter looks good to me.

And as I understand work items related to RPL maintenance can be incorporated depending upon the proposals received.
E2E-ACK discussion that happened on the ML was an important discussion and based on my understanding of that work, if proposed, will be relevant to maintenance activity. Thanks Cenk for bringing it up and I hope that work gets going.

Regards,
Rahul

From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cenk Gündogan
Sent: 22 June 2016 PM 01:58
To: roll@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter

Hello Ines, Peter,

the proposed charter looks great as it is,
however, I have a few remarks and questions that I inlined below.

Thanks!

Best,
Cenk
On 06/21/2016 06:27 PM, Ines Robles wrote:
Dear all,

Please find a draft of the working group charter.

Please review and comments. It would be good to have your comments before IETF 96.

Thank you very much in advance,

Peter and Ines

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Charter for Working Group

Low power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) are made up of many embedded devices with limited

> Should we reference RFC7228: "Terminology for Constrained-Node Networks" here to have
a consistent and common definition of the term LLN?

power, memory, and processing resources. They are interconnected by a variety of links, such as IEEE 802.15.4, Bluetooth, Low Power WiFi, wired or other low power PLC (Powerline Communication) links. LLNs are transitioning to an end-to-end IP-based solution to avoid the problem of non-interoperable networks interconnected by protocol translation gateways and proxies.

Generally speaking, LLNs are characterized as follows, but not limited to:

-LLNs operate with a hard, very small bound on state.

-In most cases, LLN optimize for saving energy by using small packet headers and few reduce amount of control packets.

-Typical traffic patterns are not simply unicast flows (e.g. in some cases most if not all traffic can be point to multipoint).

- In most cases, LLNs will be employed over link layers with restricted frame-sizes and low bit rates, thus a routing protocol for LLNs should be specifically adapted for such link layers.

- LLN routing protocols have to be very careful when trading off efficiency for generality; since LLN nodes do not have resources to waste.

These specific properties cause LLNs to have specific routing requirements.

Existing routing protocols such as OSPF, IS-IS, AODV, and OLSR have been evaluated by the working group (draft-levis-roll-overview-protocols-00) and have in their current form been found to not satisfy all of these specific routing requirements “Routing Requirements for Urban Low-Power and Lossy Networks” RFC 5548, “Industrial Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy Networks” RFC 5673, “Home Automation Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy Networks” RFC 5826, Building Automation Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy Networks RFC 5867.

The Working Group is focused on routing issues for LLN and maintaining the protocols developed by the working group.

There is a wide scope of application areas for LLNs, including industrial monitoring, building automation (HVAC, lighting, access control, fire), connected homes, health care, environmental monitoring, urban sensor networks (e.g. Smart Grid), asset tracking. The Working Group focuses on routing solutions for a subset of these: connected home, building and urban sensor networks for which routing requirements have been specified. These application-specific routing requirement documents were used for protocol design.
The Working Group focuses on IPv6 routing architectural framework for these application scenarios. The Framework will take into consideration various aspects including high reliability in the presence of time varying loss characteristics and connectivity while permitting low-power operation with very modest memory and CPU pressure in networks potentially comprising a very large number (several thousands) of nodes.

The Working Group will document how data packets are routed and encapsulated when they cross the LLN, and when they enter and exit the LLN: the appropriate use of RH3 (RFC6553),

> It should be the other way around: RH3 is RFC6554 and RPI is RFC6553

RPI (RFC6554) and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation including how routing loops are detected. In consultation with the 6lo WG, the Working Group will design a method to compress these routing headers into a single block. The WGLC on this work will be shared with 6lo. The Working group will align with the 6man WG when needed.
ROLL is responsible for maintenance of the protocols that is has developed, including RPL and MPL. AD approval is required for each new work item that is proposed.

Work Items are:

- Guidance in using RFC6553, RFC6554, and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation.

- Compression of  RFC6553, RFC6554, and IP headers in the 6LoWPAN adaptation layer context

- Additional protocol to  reduce paths for RPL in non-storing mode

- Automatic selection of MPL forwarders to reduce message replication

- Data models for RPL and MPL management

- Alternative Multicast algorithm based on Bier forwarding.

- Solution  of  the  problems associated with the use of No- Path DAO messaging in RPL.

> I remember a discussion on the mailing list about DAO/DAO-ACK being very underspecified,
which in turn may lead to non-interoperability between different implementations.
Should we use a more general wording here for the DAO handling, instead of just concentrating on the No-Path DAO?
For reference: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg09449.html

- Methods to improve the current RPL behaviour, e.g. DIS modifications in RPL.

Milestones                                        DATE

Recharter WG or close                   September 2017

Initial submission of draft about YANG RPL model to IESG   March 2017

Initial submission of draft about MPL selection to IESG    January 2017

Initial submission of draft about Bier Multicast to IESG      November 2016

Submit draft about YANG MPL model to IESG     October 2016

Initial Submission of the draft about when to use RFC6553, RFC6554, and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation     August 2016
Draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo to the IESG.

Initial submission of the draft about how to compress RFC6553, RFC6554, and IP headers in the 6LoWPAN adaptation layer context.  to the IESG.    May 2016
draft-ietf-roll-routing-dispatch

Initial Submission of the No-Path DAO Problem Statement to the IESG     November 2016

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

_______________________________________________

Roll mailing list

Roll@ietf.org<mailto:Roll@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll