Subject: [Roll] draft-ajunior-energy-awareness-00 (Energy-awareness metrics global applicability guidelines)

From: Antonio Oliveira Junior <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:24:22 +0100

Dear All,

We submitted a new Internet-draft "Energy-awareness metrics global
applicability guidelines".

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ajunior-energy-awareness-00

Abstract: This document describes a new set of energy-awareness
metrics which have been devised to be applicable to any multihop
routing protocol, including the Routing for Low Power and Lossy
Networks (RPL) protocol.

We appreciate your comments,

Sincerely,

-- 
Antonio C. Oliveira Junior, PhD Student Computer Science
MAP-i Doctoral Programme (www.map.edu.pt/i)
Researcher at IAN/SITI (http://siti.ulusofona.pt/)

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:09:04 +0100

*Hi Antonio,*

If this draft is for all wireless multihop routings, then I suggest it to
be posted also to MANET list, so you can get feedback also,

AB

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Antonio Oliveira Junior <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>

---

From: Antonio Oliveira Junior <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:12:27 +0100

Hi AB,

Thanks for advice.

Antonio

On 17 October 2012 15:09, Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi Antonio,
>
> If this draft is for all wireless multihop routings, then I suggest it to be
> posted also to MANET list, so you can get feedback also,
>
> AB
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Antonio Oliveira Junior
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear All,
>>

---

From: Rute Sofia <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:59:11 +0100

Hello Abdussalam

thanks for the input but we are not going to submit this draft to MANET, 
as the intention is to describe energy-aware metrics. The scenarios 
described relate to LLNs, and the intention is to test in the future the 
performance of the metrics with RPL. Currently, this was tested only 
with AODV and OLSR as we did not have RPL available for ns2.

The metrics are agnostic to the protocols. So the draft does not intend 
to create an extension of AODV, nor of OLSR.

Anyway, we appreciate any feedback and would very much like 
contributions from ROLL involved elements.

BR
Rute Sofia

On 10/17/2012 03:09 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> *Hi Antonio,*
> If this draft is for all wireless multihop routings, then I suggest it 
> to be posted also to MANET list, so you can get feedback also,
> AB
>
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Dear All,
>
>     MAP-i Doctoral Programme (www.map.edu.pt/i <http://www.map.edu.pt/i>)
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

-- 
Rute Sofia, PhD ([email-masked])
Scientific Director for Technology
Research Unit in Informatics Systems and Technologies (SITI)
Coordinator of the Internet Architecture and Networking Lab (IAN Lab)
University Lusofona, Portugal
[email-masked]

http://siti.ulusofona.pt
Tel.: 217 515 500 Fax: 21 757 7006
.......................................................

---

From: Rute Sofia <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:49:03 +0100

Hello Michael,

inline.

On 10/17/2012 09:14 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>>>> "Rute" == Rute Sofia <[email-masked]> writes:
>      Rute> thanks for the input but we are not going to submit this draft
>      Rute> to MANET, as the intention is to describe energy-aware
>      Rute> metrics. The scenarios described relate to LLNs, and the
>      Rute> intention is to test in the future the performance of the
>      Rute> metrics with RPL. Currently, this was tested only with AODV
>      Rute> and OLSR as we did not have RPL available for ns2.
>
> okay.
> I see that you have a section "RPL Applicability Guidelines".
> Could you change this something like "Using Energy Aware Metric with RPL"?
Yes, of course.
> It seems that you have a rather straightforward metric calculation,
> backed up some other papers, and you are basically just explaining how
> to fit this into several protocols.
>
> Wouldn't three documents make more sense?  (Certainly ROLL couldn't
> publish a document about AODV and vv)
Hum, that was never an intention but we can indeed consider deepening 
ROLL's part. The metrics have indeed been validated by scientific 
publications. Otherwise, we could not understand whether or not the 
performance improvement was reasonable enough to consider operational 
aspects, and implementation.

However: we have analysed ROLL's drafts (there is a report available here:
http://siti.ulusofona.pt/aigaion/index.php/publications/show/333) and 
realized that the metrics could be an interesting contribution as they 
have been devised to be independent of  the protocolar operation, and 
were thought having in mind a subset of LLNs (what we name as 
user-centric networks, which are basically networks composed of 
end-user, portable equipment, that becomes part of the network because 
the user wants to share some networking service or resources).

So: it is not our intention to release 3 documents... The metrics do not 
reflect the need to create any new extension specifically for AODV nor 
for OLSR. Instead, we believe that these metrics are useful to ROLL, as 
they improve network robustness based on the notion of increasing 
network lifetime. Which is something relevant in LLNs.

Of course, we will assist (if code is available) any validation in RPL. 
Which may help in understanding implications, pros and cons.

> While we have a nice metric container to hold the values, it would be
> important to explain that the metric to use is a provisioned parameter,
> and does not need to be signaled in the protocol anywhere.
As said, we can indeed deepen the implications of applying the metrics 
in ROLL and we will consider these comments for the next draft version...

BR,
Rute

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

http://siti.ulusofona.pt

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:52:04 +0200

Hi Rute,

If you want in for LLN, please than just state that in the Abstract.
Your reply to me has strong abstract statements which I don't see in
your draft. I really prefered that the abstract to be clear in which
network it is for MANETs of LLNs. In IETF there is a different between
the two networks now, before 2009 there was no different.

AB

---

From: Rute Sofia <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:24:43 +0100

Hello,

I have been in ROLL for quite some time, and our intention was always to 
consider LLNs. We will make that clear in the abstract. Let me know if a 
new draft should be sent now until the 22nd, or if we can proceed as 
usual and add the improvements to the next version (up until 6 months).

BR,
Rute

http://siti.ulusofona.pt

---

From: Rute Sofia <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:48:23 +0100

Dear Michael,

there must be some confusion. I quite frankly do not understand why 
mentioning two other protocols as *applicability scenario* requires a 
revision by two other WGs. So would appreciate if you could be so kind 
to clarify this as we are not defining operational extensions for any 
protocol. We are explaining *how* these metrics can be used in the 
context of LLNs, derived from the experimentation that we have done 
before in a specific case of LLNs, namely, user-centric networks (UCNs).

The metrics proposed are energy-aware - as far as I can see, this is 
relevant for ROLL as these metrics do show interesting improvements in 
terms of network lifetime, and at the same time, keep backward 
compatibility as they can be used for shortest-path computation.

We have analysed the other ROLL documents thoroughly to understand if 
there was room and the need to propose this draft to this specific WG. 
This draft clearly fits this goal:

"- Specification of routing metrics used in path calculation. This
includes static and dynamic link/node attributes required for routing in
LLNs."

As for MANETs (not sure what the other WG mentioned by you may be), 
there is no relation. the WG is currently dealing with *specific 
extensions* to multihop routing in the context of MANETs.

In regards to RPL. The protocol holds a container for this type of 
metrics and as such, it is adequate to understand eventual improvements 
and operational implications that the metrics may have. We are willing 
to work in this direction if ROLL believes this could benefit the WG. 
And we can forward a specific presentation on this still for the IETF 
meeting, if that could assist in understanding better the proposal.

If there are technical issues to be noted, we would be grateful to have 
them forwarded, and look also forward for any contributions that any 
element in ROLL may want to give, as a few have already provided.

BR,
Rute Sofia

On 10/19/2012 02:02 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>      Rute> Hum, that was never an intention but we can indeed consider
>      Rute> deepening ROLL's
>      Rute> part. The metrics have indeed been validated by scientific
>      Rute> publications. Otherwise, we could not understand whether or not the
>      Rute> performance improvement was reasonable enough to consider operational
>      Rute> aspects, and implementation.
>
> The problem is: how can this document be adopted or published, when it
> requires review by three WG?
>

http://siti.ulusofona.pt