[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-bormann-lwig-terms) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 7228

LWIG Working Group                                            C. Bormann
Internet-Draft                                   Universitaet Bremen TZI
Intended status: Informational                                  M. Ersue
Expires: August 14, 2014                          Nokia Siemens Networks
                                                              A. Keranen
                                                                Ericsson
                                                       February 10, 2014


               Terminology for Constrained Node Networks
                     draft-ietf-lwig-terminology-07

Abstract

   The Internet Protocol Suite is increasingly used on small devices
   with severe constraints on power, memory and processing resources,
   creating constrained node networks.  This document provides a number
   of basic terms that have turned out to be useful in the
   standardization work for constrained node networks.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 14, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must



Bormann, et al.          Expires August 14, 2014                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft               CNN terminology               February 2014


   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Core Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Constrained Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Constrained Networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.2.1.  Challenged Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.3.  Constrained Node Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.3.1.  LLN ("low-power lossy network") . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.3.2.  LoWPAN, 6LoWPAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  Classes of Constrained Devices  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Power Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.1.  Scaling Properties  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.2.  Classes of Energy Limitation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.3.  Strategies of Using Power for Communication . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

1.  Introduction

   Small devices with limited CPU, memory, and power resources, so
   called constrained devices (often used as a sensor/actuator, a smart
   object, or a smart device) can form a network, becoming "constrained
   nodes" in that network.  Such a network may itself exhibit
   constraints, e.g. with unreliable or lossy channels, limited and
   unpredictable bandwidth, and a highly dynamic topology.

   Constrained devices might be in charge of gathering information in
   diverse settings including natural ecosystems, buildings, and
   factories and sending the information to one or more server stations.
   They also act on information, by performing some physical action,
   including displaying it.  Constrained devices may work under severe
   resource constraints such as limited battery and computing power,
   little memory, as well as insufficient wireless bandwidth and ability
   to communicate; these constraints often exacerbate each other.  Other
   entities on the network, e.g., a base station or controlling server,
   might have more computational and communication resources and could
   support the interaction between the constrained devices and
   applications in more traditional networks.





Bormann, et al.          Expires August 14, 2014                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft               CNN terminology               February 2014


   Today diverse sizes of constrained devices with different resources
   and capabilities are becoming connected.  Mobile personal gadgets,
   building-automation devices, cellular phones, Machine-to-machine
   (M2M) devices, etc. benefit from interacting with other "things"
   nearby or somewhere in the Internet.  With this, the Internet of
   Things (IoT) becomes a reality, built up out of uniquely identifiable
   and addressable objects (things).  And over the next decade, this
   could grow to large numbers [fifty-billion] of Internet-connected
   constrained devices, greatly increasing the Internet's size and
   scope.

   The present document provides a number of basic terms that have
   turned out to be useful in the standardization work for constrained
   environments.  The intention is not to exhaustively cover the field,
   but to make sure a few core terms are used consistently between
   different groups cooperating in this space.

   In this document, the term "byte" is used in its now customary sense
   as a synonym for "octet".  Where sizes of semiconductor memory are
   given, the prefix "kibi" (1024) is combined with "byte" to
   "kibibyte", abbreviated "KiB", for 1024 bytes [ISQ-13].

   In computing, the term "power" is often used for the concept of
   "computing power" or "processing power", as in CPU performance.
   Unless explicitly stated otherwise, in this document the term stands
   for electrical power.  "Mains-powered" is used as a short-hand for
   being permanently connected to a stable electrical power grid.

2.  Core Terminology

   There are two important aspects to _scaling_ within the Internet of
   Things:

   o  Scaling up Internet technologies to a large number [fifty-billion]
      of inexpensive nodes, while

   o  scaling down the characteristics of each of these nodes and of the
      networks being built out of them, to make this scaling up
      economically and physically viable.

   The need for scaling down the characteristics of nodes leads to
   _constrained nodes_.









Bormann, et al.          Expires August 14, 2014                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft               CNN terminology               February 2014


2.1.  Constrained Nodes

   The term "constrained node" is best defined by contrasting the
   characteristics of a constrained node with certain widely held
   expectations on more familiar Internet nodes:

   Constrained Node:  A node where some of the characteristics that are
      otherwise pretty much taken for granted for Internet nodes at the
      time of writing are not attainable, often due to cost constraints
      and/or physical constraints on characteristics such as size,
      weight, and available power and energy.  The tight limits on
      power, memory and processing resources lead to hard upper bounds
      on state, code space and processing cycles, making optimization of
      energy and network bandwidth usage a dominating consideration in
      all design requirements.  Also, some layer 2 services such as full
      connectivity and broadcast/multicast may be lacking.

   While this is not a rigorous definition, it is grounded in the state
   of the art and clearly sets apart constrained nodes from server
   systems, desktop or laptop computers, powerful mobile devices such as
   smartphones etc.  There may be many design considerations that lead
   to these constraints, including cost, size, weight, and other scaling
   factors.

   (An alternative name, when the properties as a network node are not
   in focus, is "constrained device".)

   There are multiple facets to the constraints on nodes, often applying
   in combination, e.g.:

   o  constraints on the maximum code complexity (ROM/Flash);

   o  constraints on the size of state and buffers (RAM);

   o  constraints on the amount of computation feasible in a period of
      time ("processing power");

   o  constraints on the available (electrical) power;

   o  constraints on user interface and accessibility in deployment
      (ability to set keys, update software, etc.).










Bormann, et al.          Expires August 14, 2014                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft               CNN terminology               February 2014


   Section 3 defines a small number of interesting classes ("class-N"
   for N=0,1,2) of constrained nodes focusing on relevant combinations
   of the first two constraints.  With respect to available (electrical)
   power, [RFC6606] distinguishes "power-affluent" nodes (mains-powered
   or regularly recharged) from "power-constrained nodes" that draw
   their power from primary batteries or by using energy harvesting;
   more detailed power terminology is given in Section 4.

   The use of constrained nodes in networks often also leads to
   constraints on the networks themselves.  However, there may also be
   constraints on networks that are largely independent from those of
   the nodes.  We therefore distinguish _constrained networks_ and
   _constrained node networks_.

2.2.  Constrained Networks

   We define "constrained network" in a similar way:

   Constrained Network:  A network where some of the characteristics
      pretty much taken for granted with link layers in common use in
      the Internet at the time of writing, are not attainable.

   Constraints may include:

   o  low achievable bit rate/throughput (including limits on duty
      cycle),

   o  high packet loss, high packet loss (delivery rate) variability,

   o  highly asymmetric link characteristics,

   o  severe penalties for using larger packets (e.g., high packet loss
      due to link layer fragmentation),

   o  limits on reachability over time (a substantial number of devices
      may power off at any point in time but periodically "wake up" and
      can communicate for brief periods of time)

   o  lack of (or severe constraints on) advanced services such as IP
      multicast.

   More generally, we speak of constrained networks whenever at least
   some of the nodes involved in the network exhibit these
   characteristics.

   Again, there may be several reasons for this:

   o  cost constraints on the network,



Bormann, et al.          Expires August 14, 2014                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft               CNN terminology               February 2014


   o  constraints of the nodes (for constrained node networks),

   o  physical constraints (e.g., power constraints, environmental
      constraints, media constraints such as underwater operation,
      limited spectrum for very high density, electromagnetic
      compatibility),

   o  regulatory constraints, such as very limited spectrum availability
      (including limits on effective radiated power and duty cycle), or
      explosion safety,

   o  technology constraints, such as older and lower speed technologies
      that are still operational and may need to stay in use for some
      more time.

2.2.1.  Challenged Networks

   A constrained network is not necessarily a _challenged_ network
   [FALL]:

   Challenged Network:  A network that has serious trouble maintaining
      what an application would today expect of the end-to-end IP model,
      e.g., by:

   o  not being able to offer end-to-end IP connectivity at all;

   o  exhibiting serious interruptions in end-to-end IP connectivity;

   o  exhibiting delay well beyond the Maximum Segment Lifetime (MSL)
      defined by TCP [RFC0793].

   All challenged networks are constrained networks in some sense, but
   not all constrained networks are challenged networks.  There is no
   well-defined boundary between the two, though.  Delay-Tolerant
   Networking (DTN) has been designed to cope with challenged networks
   [RFC4838].

2.3.  Constrained Node Networks

   Constrained Node Network:  A network whose characteristics are
      influenced by being composed of a significant portion of
      constrained nodes.

   A constrained node network always is a constrained network because of
   the network constraints stemming from the node constraints, but may
   also have other constraints that already make it a constrained
   network.




Bormann, et al.          Expires August 14, 2014                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft               CNN terminology               February 2014


   The rest of this subsection introduces two additional terms that are
   in active use in the area of constrained node networks, without an
   intent to define them: LLN and (6)LoWPAN.

2.3.1.  LLN ("low-power lossy network")

   A related term that has been used to describe the focus of the IETF
   working group on Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks (ROLL) is
   "low-power lossy network" (LLN).  The ROLL terminology document
   [RFC7102] defines LLNs as follows:

      LLN: Low power and Lossy networks (LLNs) are typically composed of
      many embedded devices with limited power, memory, and processing
      resources interconnected by a variety of links, such as IEEE
      802.15.4 or Low Power WiFi.  There is a wide scope of application
      areas for LLNs, including industrial monitoring, building
      automation (HVAC, lighting, access control, fire), connected home,
      healthcare, environmental monitoring, urban sensor networks,
      energy management, assets tracking and refrigeration.. [sic]

   Beyond that, LLNs often exhibit considerable loss at the physical
   layer, with significant variability of the delivery rate, and some
   short-term unreliability, coupled with some medium term stability
   that makes it worthwhile to construct medium-term stable directed
   acyclic graphs for routing and do measurements on the edges such as
   ETX [RFC6551].  Not all LLNs comprise low power nodes
   [I-D.hui-vasseur-roll-rpl-deployment].

   LLNs typically are composed of constrained nodes; this leads to the
   design of operation modes such as the "non-storing mode" defined by
   RPL (the IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks
   [RFC6650]).  So, in the terminology of the present document, an LLN
   is a constrained node network with certain network characteristics,
   which include constraints on the network as well.

2.3.2.  LoWPAN, 6LoWPAN

   One interesting class of a constrained network often used as a
   constrained node network is the "LoWPAN" [RFC4919], a term inspired
   from the name of the IEEE 802.15.4 working group (low-rate wireless
   personal area networks (LR-WPANs)).  The expansion of that acronym,
   "Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network" contains a hard to justify
   "Personal" that is due to the history of task group naming in IEEE
   802 more than due to an orientation of LoWPANs around a single
   person.  Actually, LoWPANs have been suggested for urban monitoring,
   control of large buildings, and industrial control applications, so
   the "Personal" can only be considered a vestige.  Occasionally the
   term is read as "Low-Power Wireless Area Networks" (LoWPANs) [WEI].



Bormann, et al.          Expires August 14, 2014                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft               CNN terminology               February 2014


   Originally focused on IEEE 802.15.4, "LoWPAN" (or when used for IPv6,
   "6LoWPAN") also refers to networks built from similarly constrained
   link layer technologies [I-D.ietf-6lowpan-btle]
   [I-D.mariager-6lowpan-v6over-dect-ule] [I-D.brandt-6man-lowpanz].

3.  Classes of Constrained Devices

   Despite the overwhelming variety of Internet-connected devices that
   can be envisioned, it may be worthwhile to have some succinct
   terminology for different classes of constrained devices.  In this
   document, the class designations in Table 1 may be used as rough
   indications of device capabilities:

     +-------------+-----------------------+-------------------------+
     | Name        | data size (e.g., RAM) | code size (e.g., Flash) |
     +-------------+-----------------------+-------------------------+
     | Class 0, C0 | << 10 KiB             | << 100 KiB              |
     |             |                       |                         |
     | Class 1, C1 | ~ 10 KiB              | ~ 100 KiB               |
     |             |                       |                         |
     | Class 2, C2 | ~ 50 KiB              | ~ 250 KiB               |
     +-------------+-----------------------+-------------------------+

        Table 1: Classes of Constrained Devices (KiB = 1024 bytes)

   As of the writing of this document, these characteristics correspond
   to distinguishable clusters of commercially available chips and
   design cores for constrained devices.  While it is expected that the
   boundaries of these classes will move over time, Moore's law tends to
   be less effective in the embedded space than in personal computing
   devices: Gains made available by increases in transistor count and
   density are more likely to be invested in reductions of cost and
   power requirements than into continual increases in computing power.

   Class 0 devices are very constrained sensor-like motes.  They are so
   severely constrained in memory and processing capabilities that most
   likely they will not have the resources required to communicate
   directly with the Internet in a secure manner (rare heroic, narrowly
   targeted implementation efforts notwithstanding).  Class 0 devices
   will participate in Internet communications with the help of larger
   devices acting as proxies, gateways or servers.  Class 0 devices
   generally cannot be secured or managed comprehensively in the
   traditional sense.  They will most likely be preconfigured (and will
   be reconfigured rarely, if at all), with a very small data set.  For
   management purposes, they could answer keepalive signals and send on/
   off or basic health indications.





Bormann, et al.          Expires August 14, 2014                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft               CNN terminology               February 2014


   Class 1 devices are quite constrained in code space and processing
   capabilities, such that they cannot easily talk to other Internet
   nodes employing a full protocol stack such as using HTTP, TLS and
   related security protocols and XML-based data representations.
   However, they have enough power to use a protocol stack specifically
   designed for constrained nodes (such as CoAP over UDP
   [I-D.ietf-core-coap]) and participate in meaningful conversations
   without the help of a gateway node.  In particular, they can provide
   support for the security functions required on a large network.
   Therefore, they can be integrated as fully developed peers into an IP
   network, but they need to be parsimonious with state memory, code
   space, and often power expenditure for protocol and application
   usage.

   Class 2 devides are less constrained and fundamentally capable of
   supporting most of the same protocol stacks as used on notebooks or
   servers.  However, even these devices can benefit from lightweight
   and energy-efficient protocols and from consuming less bandwidth.
   Furthermore, using fewer resources for networking leaves more
   resources available to applications.  Thus, using the protocol stacks
   defined for more constrained devices also on Class 2 devices might
   reduce development costs and increase the interoperability.

   Constrained devices with capabilities significantly beyond Class 2
   devices exist.  They are less demanding from a standards development
   point of view as they can largely use existing protocols unchanged.
   The present document therefore does not make any attempt to define
   classes beyond Class 2.  These devices can still be constrained by a
   limited energy supply.

   With respect to examining the capabilities of constrained nodes,
   particularly for Class 1 devices, it is important to understand what
   type of applications they are able to run and which protocol
   mechanisms would be most suitable.  Because of memory and other
   limitations, each specific Class 1 device might be able to support
   only a few selected functions needed for its intended operation.  In
   other words, the set of functions that can actually be supported is
   not static per device type: devices with similar constraints might
   choose to support different functions.  Even though Class 2 devices
   have some more functionality available and may be able to provide a
   more complete set of functions, they still need to be assessed for
   the type of applications they will be running and the protocol
   functions they would need.  To be able to derive any requirements,
   the use cases and the involvement of the devices in the application
   and the operational scenario need to be analyzed.  Use cases may
   combine constrained devices of multiple classes as well as more
   traditional Internet nodes.




Bormann, et al.          Expires August 14, 2014                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft               CNN terminology               February 2014


4.  Power Terminology

   Devices not only differ in their computing capabilities, but also in
   available electrical power and/or energy.  While it is harder to find
   recognizable clusters in this space, it is still useful to introduce
   some common terminology.

4.1.  Scaling Properties

   The power and/or energy available to a device may vastly differ, from
   kilowatts to microwatts, from essentially unlimited to hundreds of
   microjoules.

   Instead of defining classes or clusters, we simply state, in SI
   units, an approximate value for one or both of the quantities listed
   in Table 2:

   +--------+---------------------------------------------+------------+
   | Name   | Definition                                  | SI Unit    |
   +--------+---------------------------------------------+------------+
   | Ps     | Sustainable average power available for the | W (Watt)   |
   |        | device over the time it is functioning      |            |
   |        |                                             |            |
   | Et     | Total electrical energy available before    | J (Joule)  |
   |        | the energy source is exhausted              |            |
   +--------+---------------------------------------------+------------+

             Table 2: Quantities Relevant to Power and Energy

   The value of Et may need to be interpreted in conjunction with an
   indication over which period of time the value is given; see the next
   subsection.

   Some devices enter a "low-power" mode before the energy available in
   a period is exhausted, or even have multiple such steps on the way to
   exhaustion.  For these devices, Ps would need to be given for each of
   the modes/steps.

4.2.  Classes of Energy Limitation

   As discussed above, some devices are limited in available energy as
   opposed to (or in addition to) being limited in available power.
   Where no relevant limitations exist with respect to energy, the
   device is classified as E9.  The energy limitation may be in total
   energy available in the usable lifetime of the device (e.g. a device
   with a non-replaceable primary battery, which is discarded when this
   battery is exhausted), classified as E2.  Where the relevant
   limitation is for a specific period, this is classified as E1, e.g. a



Bormann, et al.          Expires August 14, 2014               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft               CNN terminology               February 2014


   limited amount of energy available for the night with a solar-powered
   device, or for the period between recharges with a device that is
   manually connected to a charger, or by a periodic (primary) battery
   replacement interval.  Finally, there may be a limited amount of
   energy available for a specific event, e.g. for a button press in an
   energy harvesting light switch; this is classified as E0.  Note that
   many E1 devices in a sense also are E2, as the rechargeable battery
   has a limited number of useful recharging cycles.

   In summary, we distinguish (Table 3):

   +------+------------------------------+-----------------------------+
   | Name | Type of energy limitation    | Example Power Source        |
   +------+------------------------------+-----------------------------+
   | E0   | Event energy-limited         | Event-based harvesting      |
   |      |                              |                             |
   | E1   | Period energy-limited        | Battery that is             |
   |      |                              | periodically recharged or   |
   |      |                              | replaced                    |
   |      |                              |                             |
   | E2   | Lifetime energy-limited      | Non-replaceable primary     |
   |      |                              | battery                     |
   |      |                              |                             |
   | E9   | No direct quantitative       | Mains powered               |
   |      | limitations to available     |                             |
   |      | energy                       |                             |
   +------+------------------------------+-----------------------------+

                   Table 3: Classes of Energy Limitation

4.3.  Strategies of Using Power for Communication

   Especially when wireless transmission is used, the radio often
   consumes a big portion of the total energy consumed by the device.
   Design parameters such as the available spectrum, the desired range,
   and the bitrate aimed for, influence the power consumed during
   transmission and reception; the duration of transmission and
   reception (including potential reception) influence the total energy
   consumption.

   Based on the type of the energy source (e.g., battery or mains power)
   and how often device needs to communicate, it may use different kinds
   of strategies for power usage and network attachment.

   The general strategies for power usage can be described as follows:

   Always-on:  This strategy is most applicable if there is no reason
      for extreme measures for power saving.  The device can stay on in



Bormann, et al.          Expires August 14, 2014               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft               CNN terminology               February 2014


      the usual manner all the time.  It may be useful to employ power-
      friendly hardware or limit the number of wireless transmissions,
      CPU speeds, and other aspects for general power saving and cooling
      needs, but the device can be connected to the network all the
      time.

   Normally-off:  Under this strategy, the device sleeps such long
      periods at a time that once it wakes up, it makes sense for it to
      not pretend that it has been connected to the network during
      sleep: The device re-attaches to the network as it is woken up.
      The main optimization goal is to minimize the effort during such
      re-attachment process and any resulting application
      communications.

      If the device sleeps for long periods of time, and needs to
      communicate infrequently, the relative increase in energy
      expenditure during reattachment may be acceptable.

   Low-power:  This strategy is most applicable to devices that need to
      operate on a very small amount of power, but still need to be able
      to communicate on a relatively frequent basis.  This implies that
      extremely low power solutions needs to be used for the hardware,
      chosen link layer mechanisms, and so on.  Typically, given the
      small amount of time between transmissions, despite their sleep
      state these devices retain some form of network attachment to the
      network.  Techniques used for minimizing power usage for the
      network communications include minimizing any work from re-
      establishing communications after waking up, tuning the frequency
      of communications (including "duty cycling", where components are
      switched on and off in a regular cycle), and other parameters
      appropriately.

   In summary, we distinguish (Table 4):

   +--------+--------------------+-------------------------------------+
   | Name   | Strategy           | Ability to communicate              |
   +--------+--------------------+-------------------------------------+
   | P0     | Normally-off       | Re-attach when required             |
   |        |                    |                                     |
   | P1     | Low-power          | Appears connected, perhaps with     |
   |        |                    | high latency                        |
   |        |                    |                                     |
   | P9     | Always-on          | Always connected                    |
   +--------+--------------------+-------------------------------------+

           Table 4: Strategies of Using Power for Communication





Bormann, et al.          Expires August 14, 2014               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft               CNN terminology               February 2014


   Note that the discussion above is at the device level; similar
   considerations can apply at the communications interface level.  This
   document does not define terminology for the latter.

   A term often used to describe power-saving approaches is "duty-
   cycling".  This describes all forms of periodically switching off
   some function, leaving it on only for a certain percentage of time
   (the "duty cycle").

   [RFC7102] only distinguishes two levels, defining a Non-sleepy Node
   as a node that always remains in a fully powered on state (always
   awake) where it has the capability to perform communication (P9), and
   a Sleepy Node as a node that may sometimes go into a sleep mode (a
   low power state to conserve power) and temporarily suspend protocol
   communication (P0); there is no explicit mention of P1.

5.  Security Considerations

   This document introduces common terminology that does not raise any
   new security issue.  Security considerations arising from the
   constraints discussed in this document need to be discussed in the
   context of specific protocols.  For instance, [I-D.ietf-core-coap]
   section 11.6, "Constrained node considerations", discusses
   implications of specific constraints on the security mechanisms
   employed.  [I-D.ietf-roll-security-threats] provides a security
   threat analysis for the RPL routing protocol.  Implementation
   considerations for security protocols on constrained nodes are
   discussed in [I-D.ietf-lwig-ikev2-minimal] and
   [I-D.ietf-lwig-tls-minimal].  A wider view at security in constrained
   node networks is provided in [I-D.garcia-core-security].

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

7.  Acknowledgements

   Dominique Barthel and Peter van der Stok provided useful comments;
   Charles Palmer provided a full editorial review.

   Peter van der Stok insisted that we should have power terminology,
   hence Section 4.  The text for Section 4.3 is mostly lifted from a
   previous version of [I-D.ietf-lwig-cellular] and has been adapted for
   this document.







Bormann, et al.          Expires August 14, 2014               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft               CNN terminology               February 2014


8.  Informative References

   [FALL]     Fall, K., "A Delay-Tolerant Network Architecture for
              Challenged Internets", SIGCOMM 2003, 2003.

   [I-D.brandt-6man-lowpanz]
              Brandt, A. and J. Buron, "Transmission of IPv6 packets
              over ITU-T G.9959 Networks", draft-brandt-6man-lowpanz-02
              (work in progress), June 2013.

   [I-D.garcia-core-security]
              Garcia-Morchon, O., Kumar, S., Keoh, S., Hummen, R., and
              R. Struik, "Security Considerations in the IP-based
              Internet of Things", draft-garcia-core-security-06 (work
              in progress), September 2013.

   [I-D.hui-vasseur-roll-rpl-deployment]
              Vasseur, J., Hui, J., Dasgupta, S., and G. Yoon, "RPL
              deployment experience in large scale networks", draft-hui-
              vasseur-roll-rpl-deployment-01 (work in progress), July
              2012.

   [I-D.ietf-6lowpan-btle]
              Nieminen, J., Savolainen, T., Isomaki, M., Patil, B.,
              Shelby, Z., and C. Gomez, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets
              over BLUETOOTH Low Energy", draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle-12
              (work in progress), February 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-core-coap]
              Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", draft-ietf-core-coap-18
              (work in progress), June 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-lwig-cellular]
              Arkko, J., Eriksson, A., and A. Keranen, "Building Power-
              Efficient CoAP Devices for Cellular Networks", draft-ietf-
              lwig-cellular-00 (work in progress), August 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-lwig-ikev2-minimal]
              Kivinen, T., "Minimal IKEv2", draft-ietf-lwig-
              ikev2-minimal-01 (work in progress), October 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-lwig-tls-minimal]
              Kumar, S., Keoh, S., and H. Tschofenig, "A Hitchhiker's
              Guide to the (Datagram) Transport Layer Security Protocol
              for Smart Objects and Constrained Node Networks", draft-
              ietf-lwig-tls-minimal-00 (work in progress), September
              2013.



Bormann, et al.          Expires August 14, 2014               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft               CNN terminology               February 2014


   [I-D.ietf-roll-security-threats]
              Tsao, T., Alexander, R., Dohler, M., Daza, V., Lozano, A.,
              and M. Richardson, "A Security Threat Analysis for Routing
              Protocol for Low-power and lossy networks (RPL)", draft-
              ietf-roll-security-threats-06 (work in progress), December
              2013.

   [I-D.mariager-6lowpan-v6over-dect-ule]
              Mariager, P., Petersen, J., and Z. Shelby, "Transmission
              of IPv6 Packets over DECT Ultra Low Energy", draft-
              mariager-6lowpan-v6over-dect-ule-03 (work in progress),
              July 2013.

   [ISQ-13]   International Electrotechnical Commission, "International
              Standard -- Quantities and units -- Part 13: Information
              science and technology", IEC 80000-13, March 2008.

   [RFC0793]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
              793, September 1981.

   [RFC4838]  Cerf, V., Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Durst,
              R., Scott, K., Fall, K., and H. Weiss, "Delay-Tolerant
              Networking Architecture", RFC 4838, April 2007.

   [RFC4919]  Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., and C. Schumacher, "IPv6
              over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
              Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals", RFC
              4919, August 2007.

   [RFC6551]  Vasseur, JP., Kim, M., Pister, K., Dejean, N., and D.
              Barthel, "Routing Metrics Used for Path Calculation in
              Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6551, March 2012.

   [RFC6606]  Kim, E., Kaspar, D., Gomez, C., and C. Bormann, "Problem
              Statement and Requirements for IPv6 over Low-Power
              Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Routing", RFC
              6606, May 2012.

   [RFC6650]  Falk, J. and M. Kucherawy, "Creation and Use of Email
              Feedback Reports: An Applicability Statement for the Abuse
              Reporting Format (ARF)", RFC 6650, June 2012.

   [RFC7102]  Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and
              Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, January 2014.

   [WEI]      Shelby, Z. and C. Bormann, "6LoWPAN: the Wireless Embedded
              Internet", ISBN 9780470747995, 2009.




Bormann, et al.          Expires August 14, 2014               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft               CNN terminology               February 2014


   [fifty-billion]
              Ericsson, "More Than 50 Billion Connected Devices",
              Ericsson White Paper 284 23-3149 Uen, February 2011,
              <http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/whitepapers/
              wp-50-billions.pdf>.

Authors' Addresses

   Carsten Bormann
   Universitaet Bremen TZI
   Postfach 330440
   D-28359 Bremen
   Germany

   Phone: +49-421-218-63921
   Email: cabo@tzi.org


   Mehmet Ersue
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   St.-Martinstrasse 76
   81541 Munich
   Germany

   Phone: +49 172 8432301
   Email: mehmet.ersue@nsn.com


   Ari Keranen
   Ericsson
   Hirsalantie 11
   02420 Jorvas
   Finland

   Email: ari.keranen@ericsson.com
















Bormann, et al.          Expires August 14, 2014               [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/