[Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter - version 4

Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Wed, 13 July 2016 06:56 UTC

Return-Path: <mariainesrobles@googlemail.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 0EE1B12B028 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.689
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.689 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.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 MrholGw_UtZz for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22c.google.com (mail-vk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEF6A128E19 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id f7so52914301vkb.3 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jUZ7ZJd4zN+XX88zvmacBgZh5r7p4h5OOrJ24dAp0Ss=; b=JYrYHq60U2NsBFNrJch5XlK8HrXmv3mEJq4eSVZemnjdFeaX5lz9REChs8UrhnR/3F wlTbyG/ozVAtTxgrHomza1uBkolTvWsLIM26jnZ5pox14tcK3WNRnj2ln6ay6rWix34H Vf266sb2FUD0HVYUyzr9kpPNdeNKM5vHZbUEaOvnHh6VvojAmG2qEFYR5jdhkbx+Q35p l0pUL3tUFSwPWQM6AZeZSqNOq2nsH32tB8IKT8M8hpAxeKBuCbGP9mIHNMzo7XcJlcu9 jyZOsX5stK+EZS8jiBn86X6NpDsZHuqmtWrnZPzu0RnA5BFUQSZtES96fvGLU/g3sb1A LURA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jUZ7ZJd4zN+XX88zvmacBgZh5r7p4h5OOrJ24dAp0Ss=; b=MBaV2eN2M2+lSLoLRyB97qw3XyNOWZuFT2LXfmeHd5k7//3P4ULOlJv6Almgi43zfZ +zHKrwwbiErSQmSq1HdVxXFvOLlIOWgeC3q/HsR4db9WSc5GpqTg/QUqBBlOs0qOL98A EI1mGckDct72Y52YRQgJpJO7heiI+WE+1HTt5hFDqixWq9+S1h9cmjvfrEKmnYj/Y+cj rYo5IrwyqPaRiqeFotH8k6/1J7USmLKNCY4i/Usvx1Fg3HhHQkRN8zdKsdIhK5bIRulx Ogs05Wp54L8df1GcMJLzpYq+eL2y5JKo6NHCVm6qkKTMQKW6KAA+Sfa86YyaphgodxC+ nu3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIkqI4nOUgSS1nNVdnuUWnhLbcjbagVhj5WW9Tt9sUGD/KeKDcop4t3tCKJsM/hUtCWJ392JvaI8ZMY6g==
X-Received: by 10.159.35.40 with SMTP id 37mr3164529uae.118.1468393010682; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.36.241 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 09:56:50 +0300
Message-ID: <CAP+sJUcanyVSeogSGTemndd1k_QiBQkKK7arjQL6jO-rO=5+Bw@mail.gmail.com>
To: roll <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113bcc7ecae30405377ee3e5
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/bB1bic_MhH44qZU2CkwtCMvXoaM>
Cc: peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>, Samita Chakrabarti <samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com>
Subject: [Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter - version 4
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, 13 Jul 2016 06:56:54 -0000

Dear all,

Please find a new version of the charter. Thanks to Samita for the
suggestions.

Last changes:

A-

Old: "The Working group will align with the 6man WG when needed."

New: " ROLL will coordinate closely with the working groups in other areas
that focus on constrained node networks, such as 6lo (Internet) and CoRE
(APP).The Working group will align with the 6man WG when needed."

B-

Old: " Compression of  RFC6553, RFC6554, and IP headers in the 6LoWPAN
adaptation layer context"

New: " Compression of  RFC6553, RFC6554, and IP headers in the 6LoWPAN
adaptation layer context" (co-ordinated with 6lo WG).


Comments are welcome.

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.


ROLL will coordinate closely with the working groups in other areas that
focus on constrained node networks, such as 6lo (Internet) and CoRE (APP).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. (co-ordinated with 6lo WG).

- 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