Subject: [Roll] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-03.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:15:01 -0800 (PST)

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Overview of Existing Routing Protocols for Low Power and Lossy Networks
	Author(s)	: A. Tavakoli, S. Dawson-Haggerty, P. Levis
	Filename	: draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-03.txt
	Pages		: 25
	Date		: 2009-1-14
	
Networks of low power wireless devices introduce novel IP routing
   issues.  Low-power wireless devices, such as sensors, actuators and
   smart objects, have difficult constraints: very limited memory,
   little processing power, and long sleep periods.  As most of these
   devices are battery-powered, energy efficiency is critically
   important.  Wireless link qualities can vary significantly over time,
   requiring protocols to make agile decisions yet minimize topology
   change energy costs.  Routing over such low power and lossy networks
   has novel requirements that existing protocols may not address.  This
   document provides a brief survey of the strengths and weaknesses of
   existing protocols with respect to this class of networks.  From this
   survey it examines whether existing protocols as described in RFCs
   and mature drafts could be used without modification in these
   networks, or whether further work is necessary.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-03.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:38:53 +0000

This says:

  "We do not
   consider DTN bundles [RFC5050] or the DTN Licklider protocol
   [RFC5326] as suggested by the ROLL working group charter, because
   they are not routing protocols."

It is true that those are not routing protocols, but is a bit
of a silly thing to say. (Would you say that you didn't consider
UDP since it wasn't a routing protocol?) The relevant DTN
protocol to consider, or not, as you choose, is PRoPHET. [1]

Assuming you don't want to actually analyse PRoPHET for this
I-D, which is fine by me, I think what you want to say is something
like the following:

  "We omitted consideration of the DTN routing protocol PRoPHET [1]
   due to lack of time."

(And replace the "due to..." clause however you like.)

Stephen.

PS: Before some says "due to it being a -01 draft." Check out [2]
and its successors.

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-dtnrg-prophet-01
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lindgren-dtnrg-prophet-00

[email-masked] wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Philip Levis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:11:23 -0800

> PS: Before some says "due to it being a -01 draft." Check out [2]

Stephen,

Do you feel it would be fair to say

"We do not consider the DTN routing protocol PRoPHET [x] because it is  
predicated on the non-randomness of human mobility, which does not  
exist in many LLN application domains."

or do you feel that is an incorrect characterization? I'm drawing from  
the first paragraph of 2.1 in version -01:

    This section presents an overview of the main architecture of
    PRoPHET, a Probabilistic Routing Protocol using History of  
Encounters
    and Transitivity.  The protocol leverages the observations made on
    the non-randomness of human mobility to improve routing performance.
    Instead of doing blind epidemic replication of messages through the
    network as previous protocols have done, it applies 'probabilistic
    routing'.

Phil

---

From: Philip Levis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:02:12 -0800

>   networks, or whether further work is necessary.

Stephen, Arsalan and I tried to address all of the comments made on  
version -02. Notably, as per Stephen's Dec 19 mail:

   - OSPF changed to OSPF/IS-IS, explain the distinctions and why the  
analysis is the same
   - Notes justifying why we don't look at NEMO/DTN (verbatim from JP,  
Phil) since they're in the charter.
   - Update the "control cost" metric: note that this metric is  
"necessary but not sufficient"
   - Be a more explicit about reqs and limitations in the intro.
   - Update DYMO to talk about distance, not hopcount
   - T. Clausen's long email (most should have been considered &  
addressed)
   - OLSRv2 changed to ? in the control cost metric, because it might  
be possible to pass with the right sort of aging of updates. ("Fisheye  
State Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks").  It would almost certainly  
require a new specification to say how to do this in a correct and  
inoperable way, but might not violate the specification.  manet-fsr-00  
seems like it has not been updated in quite a while.  FSR does not  
alter the "table scalability "; it's not claimed in the paper.

One outstanding comment is Stephen Farrell's on the DTN discussion. I  
hope to (on his reply) incorporate a change on this ASAP and have  
another revision on Friday. All other comments/feedback welcome.

Phil

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:43:09 +0000

Philip Levis wrote:
> predicated on the non-randomness of human mobility, which does not exist
> in many LLN application domains."

That'd be a less embarrassing post-facto justification all right.
I still think what I said is more accurate, but if you're happy to
say that that's why you didn't include PRoPHET, then ok.

As a nit I'd s/human mobility/node mobility/ in the above though,
since humans aren't actually necessary for PRoPHET. You might
also want to s/predicated on/designed for/ as well.

Stephen.

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:05:53 +0100

> Dear WG,
>
> WG Last Call for this I-D ended on Dec 5, and we received several  
> comments that have been addressed in this revision on the document  
> (to be confirmed by the authors of these comments of course). We had  
> in-depth discussion on this document (good !) and now need to move  
> on. The objective is to send the document to the IESG for  
> publication (informational track) at the latest by end of next week.  
> Thanks for the authors of the comments to provide some feed-back by  
> June 22, preferably earlier.
>
> Thanks.
>
> JP.
>

On Jan 14, 2009, at 7:15 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> <mime-attachment>_______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [email-masked]

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:17:21 +0100

On Jan 20, 2009, at 2:47 PM, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote:

> Folks,
>
> As promised, I have reviewed the updated document. As I mentioned, I  
> think that it's improved, and kudos to the authors for their efforts.
>
> There are still a couple of editorial issues that I think should be  
> clarified. My overall "worry" is if the document is "read wrongly"  
> -- i.e. there are certain places where some implicit assumptions  
> need be made explicit in order to avoid potential confusions/ 
> misunderstandings.
>
> So there're a bunch of nits and editorials and a minor move-a-cpl-of- 
> paragraphs suggestion, and a couple of bigger issues, that I think  
> should -- and can easily -- be fixed and would make the document  
> less prone to being misunderstood by the casual reader.
>
> One thing I want to emphasize is, that I worry about having an empty  
> security section -- the different protocols have different  
> characteristics wrt. security, and should one be chosen for  
> extension to ROLL (even if in an incompatible way), I feel that this  
> could be a VERY important point. Could we discuss, on the list, the  
> reasoning behind and the thoughts on this matter? I would consider  
> security to be an important issue, and that evaluating also how the  
> different protocols lends themselves to what ROLL needs would be  
> important.
>
> Anyways, I've dragged the I-D into Pages and annotated it, trying to  
> make suggestions when possible. The PDF is attached to this email (I  
> hope that roll@IETF allows attachments?) I think that the vast  
> majority of my comments should be editorial, and should also be  
> relatively easy to action. But, I think that they'd be important to  
> action as well, especially to avoid misunderstandings to the casual  
> reader.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thomas
>
> <draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-03_review.pdf>

---

From: Thomas Heide Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:26:56 +0100

Hmm, seems attachments do not get through....

Thomas

On Jan 20, 2009, at 15:17 PM, JP Vasseur wrote:

>> As promised, I have reviewed the updated document. As I mentioned,  
>> I think that it's improved, and kudos to the authors for their  
>> efforts.
>>
>> There are still a couple of editorial issues that I think should  
>> be clarified. My overall "worry" is if the document is "read  
>> wrongly" -- i.e. there are certain places where some implicit  
>> assumptions need be made explicit in order to avoid potential  
>> confusions/misunderstandings.
>>
>> So there're a bunch of nits and editorials and a minor move-a-cpl- 
>> of-paragraphs suggestion, and a couple of bigger issues, that I  
>> think should -- and can easily -- be fixed and would make the  
>> document less prone to being misunderstood by the casual reader.
>>
>> One thing I want to emphasize is, that I worry about having an  
>> empty security section -- the different protocols have different  
>> extension to ROLL (even if in an incompatible way), I feel that  
>> this could be a VERY important point. Could we discuss, on the  
>> list, the reasoning behind and the thoughts on this matter? I  
>> would consider security to be an important issue, and that  
>> evaluating also how the different protocols lends themselves to  
>> what ROLL needs would be important.
>>
>> Anyways, I've dragged the I-D into Pages and annotated it, trying  
>> to make suggestions when possible. The PDF is attached to this  
>> email (I hope that roll@IETF allows attachments?) I think that the  
>> vast majority of my comments should be editorial, and should also  
>> be relatively easy to action. But, I think that they'd be  
>> important to action as well, especially to avoid misunderstandings  
>> to the casual reader.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Thomas
>>

---

From: Thomas Heide Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:47:23 +0100

Folks,

There are still a couple of editorial issues that I think should be  
clarified. My overall "worry" is if the document is "read wrongly" --  
i.e. there are certain places where some implicit assumptions need be  
made explicit in order to avoid potential confusions/misunderstandings.

So there're a bunch of nits and editorials and a minor move-a-cpl-of- 
paragraphs suggestion, and a couple of bigger issues, that I think  
should -- and can easily -- be fixed and would make the document less  
prone to being misunderstood by the casual reader.

One thing I want to emphasize is, that I worry about having an empty  
security section -- the different protocols have different  
characteristics wrt. security, and should one be chosen for extension  
to ROLL (even if in an incompatible way), I feel that this could be a  
VERY important point. Could we discuss, on the list, the reasoning  
behind and the thoughts on this matter? I would consider security to  
be an important issue, and that evaluating also how the different  
protocols lends themselves to what ROLL needs would be important.

Cheers,

Thomas

---

From: Philip Levis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 07:55:53 -0800

> Hmm, seems attachments do not get through....

I received the attachment successfully.

Phil

---

From: Thomas Heide Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:07:26 +0100

Ok, thanks for the heads up. I'll stop worrying.

Thomas