[smartpowerdir] Fwd: LWIG WG proposal

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 10 January 2011 00:24 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: smartpowerdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: smartpowerdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9153B3A685A for <smartpowerdir@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 16:24:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.364
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.364 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.235, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R3Bko--hO+hX for <smartpowerdir@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 16:24:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CF6A3A6833 for <smartpowerdir@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 16:24:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown []) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8ABE9A4727; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 19:26:52 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fgpcON5HVAXw; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 19:26:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from new-host.home (pool-173-79-232-76.washdc.fios.verizon.net []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD2B99A478E; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 19:26:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-32-631906998; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 19:26:43 -0500
References: <4D2A4844.9020301@piuha.net>
To: IETF SmartPowerDir <smartpowerdir@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <45CA4DDE-356C-41A2-88C5-BA33DDB5FB14@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Subject: [smartpowerdir] Fwd: LWIG WG proposal
X-BeenThere: smartpowerdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Members of the Smart Power Directorate <smartpowerdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartpowerdir>, <mailto:smartpowerdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/smartpowerdir>
List-Post: <mailto:smartpowerdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:smartpowerdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartpowerdir>, <mailto:smartpowerdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 00:24:34 -0000

Please review the attached draft charter.  I'll provide any concerns to the IESG.


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
> Date: January 9, 2011 6:44:04 PM EST
> To: IAB <iab@iab.org>rg>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>, "ipdir@ietf.org" <ipdir@ietf.org>rg>, TSV Dir <tsv-dir@ietf.org>rg>, "'Cao,Zhen'" <caozhen@chinamobile.com>om>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
> Subject: LWIG WG proposal
> Secretary (Bcced),
> Please put this working group creation to the agenda of the next IESG telechat:
> All,
> After thinking about the results of the LWIP BOF for a while and talking to various people, my proposal is to create a focused working group to produce one document. The key to the success of this effort is recruiting the smart guys who have actually built some of the existing implementations. We are in talks with several such experts, though our exact recruitment ability is yet to be seen. I have Adam Dunkels from SICS (implementor of uIP) on board as an example, but many people have not responded to our e-mails yet. Here's a proposed charter. Comments appreciated.
> -----
> Light-Weight Implementation Guidance (LWIG)
> Current Status: Proposed
> Chairs:
>    TBD
> Internet Area Directors:
>    Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
>    Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
> Internet Area Advisor:
>    Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
> Transport Area Advisor:
>   TBD
> Mailing Lists:
>    General Discussion: lwip@ietf.org
>    To Subscribe:       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
>    Archive:            http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lwip
> Description of Working Group:
> Communications technology is being embedded into our environment. Different types of devices in our buildings, vehicles, equipment and other objects have a need to communicate. It is expected that most of these devices employ the Internet Protocol suite. However, there is a lot of variation in the capabilities between different types of devices, and it is not always easy to embed all the necessary features. The Light-Weight Implementation Guidance (LWIG) Working Group focuses on helping the implementors of the smallest devices. The goal is to be able to build minimal yet interoperable IP-capable devices for the most constrained environments.
> Building a small implementation does not have to be hard. Many small devices use stripped down versions of general purpose operating systems and their TCP/IP stacks. However, there are implementations that go even further in minimization and can exist in as few as a couple of kilobytes of code, as on some devices this level of optimization is necessary. Technical and cost considerations may limit the computing power, battery capacity, available memory, or communications bandwidth that can be provided. To overcome these limitations the implementors have to employ the right hardware and software mechanisms. For instance, certain types of memory management or even fixed memory allocation may be required. It is also useful to understand what is necessary from the point of view of the communications protocols and the application employing them. For instance, a device that only acts as a client or only requires one connection can simplify its TCP implementation.
> The purpose of the LWIG working group is to collect experiences from existing small IP stacks with regards to protocol implementation. The group shall focus only on techniques that have been used in actual implementations and do not impact interoperability with other devices. The techniques shall also not affect conformance to the relevant specifications. The output of this work is a document that describes implementation techniques for reducing complexity, memory footprint, or power usage. The main focus is in the IPv4, IPv6, UDP, TCP, and associated protocols. This document would be helpful for the implementors of new devices or for the implementors of new general-purpose small IP stacks. It is also expected that the document increases our knowledge of what existing small implementations do, and helps in the further optimization of the existing implementations.
> Generic hardware design advice and software implementation techniques are outside the scope of this work, as such expertise is not within the IETF domain. The group shall also not develop any new protocols or protocol behavior modifications beyond what is already allowed by existing RFCs, because it is important to ensure that different types of devices can work together. The group shall not develop assumptions or profiles about the operating environment of the devices, because, in general, it is not possible to guarantee any special configuration.
> Given that the group works on both IP and transport layer protocols it is necessary to ensure that expertise in both aspects is present in the group. Participation from the implementors of existing small IP stacks is also required.
> Milestones:
> February 2011   Design team of experts and a document editor recruited
> March 2011       Working group chartered
> August 2011       First version of the implementation guidance document submitted
> March 2012      Submit the implementation guidance document to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC