Subject: [Roll] proposal for common table of contents for applicability statements

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 13:44:37 -0400

Here is the table of contents from each of the applicability
statements.  
I thought we had a third applicability statement as an independant
draft, but I couldn't find one.  We should have a building/home
applicability statement.

I feel that these two applicability statements are over broad, and that
each should be split into two or three statements.    In particular, I
think that Energy-Constrained and Energy-Rich networks should be split
into different documents as they have vastly different requirements.
It may be that there is a further split for networks that are dense
(urban) vs those that are less dense (suburban or rural).

A major purpose of these documents is to permit a utility (etc.) to be able
to write an RFP to procure equipment from multiple vendors that can
interoperate.  (there are NAFTA, GATT, etc. that governments needs to
comply to, which an RFC easily satisfies)

As such, there needs to be enough information as to the profile of RPL
to be deployed (to each area), such that a vendor can actually implement
something definite.

I also feel that these document spend too much time on explaining what
RPL is (and frankly they they do a really good, succint job at it, so I
hate to lose that text, but I don't think it needs to be repeated)

What I'd like to do (and I invite you to reply inline, keeping just this
text, and +1 each part seperately)

1) is to synchronize these two documents' table of contents.   

2) discuss adopting draft-phinney as a WG document!

3) make sure that we are also detailing security and routing issues
   properly, and yes, we need to have statments like:
   "Metering networks using ZigBee FOOBAR MUST in layer-2 have
   security BAZ enabled in order that RPL messages will be secured."
or:
   "This statement applies to using RPL as the MESH over network on
    802.15.4 technology with the 6LowPAN defined nd-18 including RFC6282
    HC"

The applicability statement is not the place to be general.
Let's be specific, and in doing so, let's be succinct.

draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-05.txt:
   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Electric Metering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.2.  Gas and Water Metering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.3.  Routing Protocol for LLNs (RPL)  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.4.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  Network Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.1.1.  Electric Meter Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.1.2.  Energy-Constrained Network Infrastructure  . . . . . .  6
     2.2.  Traffic Characteristics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       2.2.1.  Smart Metering Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.2.2.  Distribution Automation Communication  . . . . . . . .  8
       2.2.3.  Emerging Applications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   3.  Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements  . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  RPL Profile  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.1.  RPL Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.1.1.  RPL Instances  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.1.2.  Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.1.3.  DAO Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.1.4.  Path Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.1.5.  Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.1.6.  DODAG Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.1.7.  Multicast  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.1.8.  Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.1.9.  P2P communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.2.  Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges  . . . . . . 12
       4.2.1.  Trickle Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.2.2.  Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   5.  Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   7.  Other Related Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   9.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     10.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     10.2. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

draft-phinney-rpl-industrial-applicability-00:
   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.1.  Deployment scenarii  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.2.  Applications and Traffic classes . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.3.  RPL applicability matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   4.  Characterization of communication flows in IACS wireless
       networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.1.  General  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.2.  Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm  . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.3.  Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) communication
           paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.4.  Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm  . . . . . . . . 15
     4.5.  Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm  . . . . . 16
     4.6.  Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast  . . . . . . 17
     4.7.  RPL applicability per communication paradigm . . . . . . . 18
   5.  RPL profile  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     5.1.  Use for process control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     5.2.  RPL features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       5.2.1.  Storing vs. non-storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       5.2.2.  DAO policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       5.2.3.  Path metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       5.2.4.  Objective functions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       5.2.5.  DODAG repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       5.2.6.  Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     5.3.  RPL options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     5.4.  Recommended configuration defaults and ranges  . . . . . . 22
       5.4.1.  Trickle parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       5.4.2.  Other parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       5.4.3.  Additional configuration recommendations . . . . . . . 23
   6.  Other related protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   7.  Manageability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   8.  IANA considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   9.  Security considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     11.3. External Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

- -- 
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works 
IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/

---

From: Anders Brandt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 08:41:13 +0000

Hi Michael

> I thought we had a third applicability statement as an independant draft,
> but I couldn't find one.  We should have a building/home applicability
> statement.

It is here

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-building-01

In its current state it is more like a problem statement...

RPL P2P is in its final stages and solves most of the issues that were
addressed in this draft. Thus, it is about time to get it revived.

I will try to get this done before the cutoff date but cannot promise.

Thanks,
  Anders

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Michael Richardson
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 19:45
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Roll] proposal for common table of contents for applicability
> statements
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> Here is the table of contents from each of the applicability statements.
> I thought we had a third applicability statement as an independant draft,
> but I couldn't find one.  We should have a building/home applicability
> statement.
> 
> think that Energy-Constrained and Energy-Rich networks should be split into
> different documents as they have vastly different requirements.
> A major purpose of these documents is to permit a utility (etc.) to be able to
> write an RFP to procure equipment from multiple vendors that can
> As such, there needs to be enough information as to the profile of RPL to be
> deployed (to each area), such that a vendor can actually implement
> something definite.
> 
> RPL is (and frankly they they do a really good, succint job at it, so I hate to
> lose that text, but I don't think it needs to be repeated)
> 
> What I'd like to do (and I invite you to reply inline, keeping just this text,
> and +1 each part seperately)
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iQCVAwUBT7KWBIqHRg3pndX9AQKEDgP/ddKMasN7jRNVl6ZGAtCchSYeV/0o
> USQ0
> Gn8FSRCbacZosnchjVDuDz5MMV4MToC8BPgBh2n0qW4jTpYK8KTPiwhGcJUg
> kwtv
> n1xmEJj6d9kftudUCFfmh2WlrXaPWlYdndM/avulkGK8mOVYphHYrtxf4nbyj1
> HV
> Y3ChARZ5nUM=
> =8qRA
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 10:13:50 -0400

>>>>> "Anders" == Anders Brandt <[email-masked]> writes:
    Anders> It is here

    Anders> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-building-01

    Anders> In its current state it is more like a problem statement...

It expired.
Can you at least repost the -01 document (as -02)?

I would like to propose that this become a WG document.

--

---

From: Anders Brandt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 07:32:43 +0000

Michael,

> I would like to propose that this become a WG document.

Done!

- Anders

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Michael Richardson
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 16:14
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Anders Brandt
> Subject: Re: [Roll] proposal for common table of contents for applicability
> statements
> 
>