Subject: [Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter - version 4

From: Ines Robles <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 09:56:50 +0300

Dear all,

Please find a new version of the charter. Thanks to Samita for the
suggestions.

Last changes:

A-

Old: "The Working group will align with the 6man WG when needed."

New: " ROLL will coordinate closely with the working groups in other areas
that focus on constrained node networks, such as 6lo (Internet) and CoRE
(APP).The Working group will align with the 6man WG when needed."

B-

Old: " Compression of  RFC6553, RFC6554, and IP headers in the 6LoWPAN
adaptation layer context"

New: " Compression of  RFC6553, RFC6554, and IP headers in the 6LoWPAN
adaptation layer context" (co-ordinated with 6lo WG).

Comments are welcome.

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.

ROLL will coordinate closely with the working groups in other areas that
focus on constrained node networks, such as 6lo (Internet) and CoRE (APP).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. (co-ordinated with 6lo WG).

- 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

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 09:55:29 -0400

I have read the charter, and I do not find anything more to tweak.
I would prefer to cut some of the history out, or move it to the end, but I
recognize that this may have value to new comers.

Do we presently have people willing to contribute to a YANG model?

    > 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.

    > 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).

    > 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.

    > 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

    > 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.

    > 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.

    > ROLL will coordinate closely with the working groups in other areas
    > that focus on constrained node networks, such as 6lo (Internet) and
    > CoRE (APP).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.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-