Re: [Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter

[Ines Robles <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]>:

> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>