Re: [Roll] Consensus Call on abandoning draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ines,

I don't agree to make quick decisions or consensus. Why is this draft
not useful to industry? if we know what was the industry respond, then
we will be able to decide. we should not confuse purposes of this WG
with another WG, may be the some industry companies we speak to are
still confused with new technologies. Please help,

Best Regards
AB



On 3/3/14, Ines  Robles <[e-mail]> wrote:
> *Hi,We start a consensus call on abandoning
> draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability/>,
> this call is from 03/03/2014 to 03/10/2014.Please let us know your opinion
> on this topic.Additionally, this topic is going to be discussed on Thursday
> 6th in the IETF 89. If you want to participate remotely, please follow
> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/89/remote-participation.html
> <http://www.ietf.org/meeting/89/remote-participation.html>.Thank you in
> advance,Michael & Ines.*
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
> Date: 2014-02-05 12:32 GMT-03:00
> Subject: [Roll] proposal to abandon
> draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability
> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <[e-mail]>, tisch <
> [e-mail]>
>
>
>
> Last summer during the chartering process of 6tisch, I asked if 6tisch
> wanted
> or or ought to adopt draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability.  We did
> not reach a clear conclusion, and agreed to revisit the question later on.
>
> EXEC SUMMARY:
>   I want to propose that the ROLL WG abandon this document as not
> particularly
>   useful to real industry.   If this document normatively references
> 6tisch,
>   it will in essence be obsoleted by the documents it references.  If the
>   document does no normatively reference 6tisch, it may have no value.
>
>   6tisch will not adopt this document, as it has equivalent documents
> already
>   planned.   The value of this document may have been simply to make the
>   motiviation for creating 6tisch clear.
>
>
> AUDIENCE:
>   First, I want to recognize that the group of people working on 6tisch are
>   people who think that they can not deploy into industrial settings
> without
>   availability of deterministic behaviour.  Thus I want to acknowledge that
>   asking 6tisch people if deterministic behaviour is useful is preaching to
>   the choir.
>
>   Second, I would ask that those of you who are in other SDOs that deal
> with
>   this kind of thing (IEC, IEEE, ZigbeeIP) where I, a non-member, can not
>   post, to please forward this email and/or a link to the thread.
>
> BACKGROUND:
>   The document deals with using RPL in Industrial settings, and does a very
>   good job of explaining how things operate in that space.
>
>   The document includes a diagram in section 2.1.1, on page 7:
>
>   > It appears from the above sections that whether and the way RPL can
>   > be applied for a given flow depends both on the deployment scenario
>   > and on the class of application / traffic.  At a high level, this can
>   > be summarized by the following matrix:
>
>   >
> +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
>   > |   Phase \  Class    |   0       1       2       3       4       5
> |
>   >
> +=====================+================================================+
>   > |   Construction      |                   X       X       X       X
> |
>   >
> +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
>   > |   Planned startup   |                   X       X       X       X
> |
>   >
> +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
>   > |   Normal operation  |                           ?       ?       ?
> |
>   >
> +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
>   > |   Planned shutdown  |                   X       X       X       X
> |
>   >
> +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
>   > |Plant decommissioning|                   X       X       X       X
> |
>   >
> +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
>   > | Recovery and repair |   X       X       X       X       X       X
> |
>   >
> +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
>   >
>   >
>   >  ? : typically usable for all but higher-rate classes 0,1 PS traffic
>   ===
>
>   An X denotes that a non-deterministric LLN using RPL could be used in
>   uring many phases of a plant, but it can not be used for class 0,1
> traffic
>   during "Normal Operation".   That is, an RPL LLN is useful during
> exceptional
>   times, but not during normal times.   Whether normal operation can be
> served
>   by a deterministric (6tisch) network, or whether it will require wired
>   operation is clearly going to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
>
> QUESTION:
>   The group of deployments for which "Normal Operation" can be satisfied by
> a
>   6tisch based solution, would in general be covered by 6tisch.  In
>   particular whatever (security) bootstrap process used by 6tisch would be
>   used during the other phases, so any security analysis done in this
>   document is not useful.
>
>   If the deployment can not be satisfied by 6tisch (e.g Normal Operation
>   requires wires, etc.), then this document may well have some value.
>   In that case, this document might have value, but we have not at present
>   identified the constituency that would be willing to work on this
> document.
>
>   Does such a consitutency exist?
>   If it does not, then I suggest that it is not worth the cost to the IETF
>   to publish this document.
>
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
> IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/
>