draft-iab-smart-object-workshop-01.txt   draft-iab-smart-object-workshop-02.txt 
Network Working Group H. Tschofenig Network Working Group H. Tschofenig
Internet-Draft Nokia Siemens Networks Internet-Draft Nokia Siemens Networks
Intended status: Informational J. Arkko Intended status: Informational J. Arkko
Expires: January 12, 2012 Ericsson Expires: March 3, 2012 Ericsson
July 11, 2011 August 31, 2011
Report from the 'Interconnecting Smart Objects with the Internet' Report from the 'Interconnecting Smart Objects with the Internet'
Workshop, 25th March 2011, Prague Workshop, 25th March 2011, Prague
draft-iab-smart-object-workshop-01.txt draft-iab-smart-object-workshop-02.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document provides an overview of a workshop held by the Internet This document provides an overview of a workshop held by the Internet
Architecture Board (IAB) on 'Interconnecting Smart Objects with the Architecture Board (IAB) on 'Interconnecting Smart Objects with the
Internet'. The workshop took place in Prague on March, 25th. The Internet'. The workshop took place in Prague on March, 25th. The
main goal of the workshop was to solicit feedback from the wider main goal of the workshop was to solicit feedback from the wider
community on their experience with deploying IETF protocols in community on their experience with deploying IETF protocols in
constrained environments. This report summarizes the discussions and constrained environments. This report summarizes the discussions and
lists the conclusions and recommendations to the Internet Engineering lists the conclusions and recommendations to the Internet Engineering
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 12, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 3, 2012.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 16, line 51 skipping to change at page 16, line 51
objects to the Internet infrastructure and a number of wired and objects to the Internet infrastructure and a number of wired and
wireless technologies may be suitable for a specific deployment. wireless technologies may be suitable for a specific deployment.
Depending on the chosen technologies the above-mentioned mesh-under Depending on the chosen technologies the above-mentioned mesh-under
vs. route-over approach will have to be decided and further decisions vs. route-over approach will have to be decided and further decisions
will have to be made about the choice of a specific routing protocol. will have to be made about the choice of a specific routing protocol.
In 2008 the IETF formed the Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks In 2008 the IETF formed the Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks
(ROLL) working group to specify a routing solution for smart object (ROLL) working group to specify a routing solution for smart object
environments. During its first year of existence, the working group environments. During its first year of existence, the working group
studied routing requirements in details (see [RFC5867], [RFC5826], studied routing requirements in details (see [RFC5867], [RFC5826],
[RFC5673], [RFC5548]), published a protocol survey looking at a [RFC5673], [RFC5548]), worked on a protocol survey document comparing
number of existing routing protocols a number of existing routing protocols
[I-D.ietf-roll-protocols-survey], including Ad hoc On-Demand Distance [I-D.ietf-roll-protocols-survey], including Ad hoc On-Demand Distance
Vector (AODV)-style of protocols [RFC3561]. The ROLL WG concluded Vector (AODV)-style of protocols [RFC3561], against the identified
that a new routing protocol satisfying the documented requirements requirements. Although the survey document was abandoned and not
has to be developed and the work on the RPL was started, as the IETF published an RFC it serves as a historical data point. The ROLL WG
routing protocol for smart object networks. Nevertheless, concluded that a new routing protocol satisfying the documented
controversial discussions at the workshop about which routing requirements has to be developed and the work on the RPL was started,
protocols is best in a given environment are still ongoing. Thomas as the IETF routing protocol for smart object networks.
Clausen, for example, argued for using an AODV-like routing protocol Nevertheless, controversial discussions at the workshop about which
in [Clausen]. routing protocols is best in a given environment are still ongoing.
Thomas Clausen, for example, argued for using an AODV-like routing
protocol in [Clausen].
4. Conclusions and Next Steps 4. Conclusions and Next Steps
The workshop allowed the participants to get exposed to interesting The workshop allowed the participants to get exposed to interesting
applications and their requirements (buildings, fountains, theater, applications and their requirements (buildings, fountains, theater,
etc.), to have discussions about radically different architectures etc.), to have discussions about radically different architectures
and their issues (e.g., information centric networking), to look at and their issues (e.g., information centric networking), to look at
existing technology from a new angle (sleep nodes, energy existing technology from a new angle (sleep nodes, energy
consumption), to focus on some details of the protocol stack consumption), to focus on some details of the protocol stack
(neighbour discovery, security, routing) and to implementation (neighbour discovery, security, routing) and to implementation
skipping to change at page 19, line 44 skipping to change at page 19, line 44
very worthwhile goal, any such algorithms will likely have to very worthwhile goal, any such algorithms will likely have to
offer very significant benefits before they will be broadly offer very significant benefits before they will be broadly
adopted. 20% less CPU is unlikely to be a winning argument no adopted. 20% less CPU is unlikely to be a winning argument no
matter what an algorithm inventor believes. matter what an algorithm inventor believes.
Energy Design Considerations: Energy Design Considerations:
One part of the workshop was focused on the discussion of energy One part of the workshop was focused on the discussion of energy
implications for IETF protocol design with proposals being made implications for IETF protocol design with proposals being made
how to extend protocols to better support nodes that are mostly how to extend protocols to better support nodes that are mostly
sleeping. Discussion are encouraged to take place may take place sleeping. Discussion are encouraged to take place at the RECIPE
at the RECIPE mailing list [RECIPE]. The workshop position paper mailing list [RECIPE]. The workshop position paper [Wasserman] by
[Wasserman] by Margaret Wasserman provides a good starting point Margaret Wasserman provides a good starting point for further
for further investigations. investigations.
Information/Content Centric Networking: Information/Content Centric Networking:
Information/Content Centric Networking is about accessing named Information/Content Centric Networking is about accessing named
content and a number of research projects have emerged around this content and a number of research projects have emerged around this
theme. At this point in time the work is not yet ready for theme. At this point in time the work is not yet ready for
standardization in the IETF. Instead, the formation of an IRTF standardization in the IETF. Instead, the formation of an IRTF
research group has been proposed and more details are available on research group has been proposed and more details are available on
the IRTF DISCUSS mailing list [irtf-discuss]. the IRTF DISCUSS mailing list [irtf-discuss].
 End of changes. 6 change blocks. 
18 lines changed or deleted 20 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/