Re: [Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Wed, 06 July 2016 12:41 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.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 62BFC12D774 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 05:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.946
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fHN1FAZ8CbGw for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 05:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A26A12D626 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 05:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=47402; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1467808905; x=1469018505; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=oHQ1EqV8nNn2ZZEWm6H3AOu+xaRWksinblwnlp/mRWo=; b=YNAM/RtOnPSWxeQBxWRrxLnzLKVNUxwhORQhj9jbYG2yP5meg5riviTh c4MOptH4dsKrr5HKEDYYmqqcfU2sXGduUCuetM7ILzVd/gIvz1i+VuoTr TMvWoI0hRz4J6ilFNO/Xykl5Jg8VyTeOqe0HWFuJmmjkdZ3tTlO/vezXG Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AQAgB8+3xX/5pdJa1dgnBOVnwGuSuBd?= =?us-ascii?q?yKFdgIcgRA4FAEBAQEBAQFlJ4RMAQEFAQEhCkELEAIBCBEEAQEhAQYDAgICJQs?= =?us-ascii?q?UCQgCBA4FCBOIFQ6sDo93AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFwWGJ4RNgSKCe?= =?us-ascii?q?goxH4JLgloFk1mFOgGOP4FxhFaDLoU8b48aAR42gggcgUxuhy4HPn8BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,318,1464652800"; d="scan'208,217";a="120639191"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Jul 2016 12:41:44 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u66CfiJt029673 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 6 Jul 2016 12:41:44 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 07:41:43 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 07:41:43 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter
Thread-Index: AQHRy9nVupFNWUgruE+yIgm4tP2235/9MbkggAsl8RGAAxduYA==
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 12:41:13 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 12:41:07 +0000
Message-ID: <f7829a0333174a46ba135ed5f803f6fa@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <CAP+sJUdRQHJhuszRLmMLoObVVELTGKAboPZpjHRV1M1t3T1BpA@mail.gmail.com> <962ecd511f1b4629bcf329790509bb0c@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <17987.1467118035@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <7887a2c930bd4eb3b90da72e2bbe914b@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <ec28f1cd-5f5e-43d9-bfc6-706a8b3116f2@gmail.com> <CAH7SZV-yuc8Zx6NBi_vMHZMFqEwZuKb25hewE2w1CC48yNyZ6Q@mail.gmail.com> <d9eb6a59c4206fe735a69e2d6ba57724@xs4all.nl> <dd7a9d7b-9963-bd5e-3ff5-b271dffe040a@gmail.com> <cbd3ddb63cc7a373b76b90438bcf727a@xs4all.nl> <CAP+sJUeg93Kz31pB2P3KwsyH0mQZy73H4ujksCkoROt8qNXhYA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP+sJUeg93Kz31pB2P3KwsyH0mQZy73H4ujksCkoROt8qNXhYA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.228.216.21]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_f7829a0333174a46ba135ed5f803f6faXCHRCD001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/ZvPCDTmPnjfAn-MNhu6WVpoiicI>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 06 Jul 2016 12:41:48 -0000

Hello Ines:

About



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

I think it is time to work on compressing RPL DIOs and DAOs as well, wouldn’t you say?

Pascal

From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ines Robles
Sent: lundi 4 juillet 2016 15:26
To: roll <roll@ietf.org>;
Cc: peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>;; Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>;
Subject: Re: [Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter

Dear all,

Thank you very much for your comments, we send a new version of the charter.

Last changes:

a- We  would keep the old paragraphs, might them be helpful for newcomers.

b- Remove "AD approval is required for each new work item that is proposed." since it is part of the process anyway.

c - Two work items were modified:

  c.1-  Old: " Additional protocol to  reduce paths for RPL in non-storing mode"
New: "Additional protocol elements to reduce packet size and the amount of required routing states"


c.2 - Old: " Methods to improve or correct  the current RPL behaviour such as DIS modifications and problems associated with DAO messaging in RPL"

New: "" Methods to improve or correct  the current RPL behaviour and the other protocols defined by the working group.


Please comments,

Thank you,

Peter and Ines

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


CHARTER PROPOSAL:


Charter for Working Group


Low power and Lossy Networks (LLNs ) [RFC7102] [RFC7228] are made up of many embedded devices with limited 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 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 RPI (RFC6553), RH3 (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.


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 elements to reduce packet size and the amount of required routing states


- Automatic selection of MPL forwarders to reduce message replication


- Data models for RPL and MPL management


- Alternative Multicast algorithm based on Bier forwarding.


- Methods to improve or correct  the current RPL behaviour and the other protocols defined by the working group.


Milestones


DATE                            Milestone

September 2017            Recharter WG or close

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

January 2017         Initial submission of draft about MPL selection to IESG

November 2016        Initial submission of draft about Bier Multicast to IESG

October 2016         Submit draft about YANG MPL model to IESG

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

May 2016             Initial submission of the draft about how to compress RFC6553, RFC6554, and IP headers in the 6LoWPAN adaptation layer context.  to the IESG. draft-ietf-roll-routing-dispatch
November 2016        Initial Submission of the No-Path DAO Problem Statement to the IESG



2016-06-30 12:11 GMT+03:00 peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl<mailto:stokcons@xs4all.nl>>:
Hi Cenk,

thanks for your suggestions.
I cannot refrain from reacting, and see below.

Cenk Gündogan schreef op 2016-06-29 17:04:
Hello Peter,

I believe Pascal proposed to keep it in a more generic form
"improvements to the RPL routing protocol".

Otherwise, read on for my comments regarding the former wording:
I propose we drop any form of uncertainty and change the "and/or" to "and".

much better.
Secondly, "packet size" sounds a little bit too generic, how about
"control packet sizes",
or "RPL related packet sizes"?

I was also thinking of the headers, and IP in IP headers; and whatever may come; so I prefer packet size (NOT to be confused with payload size)
It looks general and still concrete enough.
Thirdly, would "reduce ... the amount of required routing states"
be a better choice? It hints to a reduction of memory while still providing an
operational (converged) DODAG.
The proposed form "reduce ... the amount of accumulated routing
states" could also
refer to drop states and decrease the quality of the routing protocol
while doing so.

required it is

Cenk

Other suggestions or improvements?

If not we send new text on monday/tuesday.

Peter
On 06/29/2016 09:05 AM, peter van der Stok wrote:
Hi All,

If I understand correctly the discussion, the proposal is to replace

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

by

"Additional protocol elements to reduce packet size and/or the amount of accumulated routing states."

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org<mailto:Roll@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll