draft-iab-smart-object-workshop-02.txt   draft-iab-smart-object-workshop-03.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: March 3, 2012 Ericsson Expires: March 3, 2012 Ericsson
August 31, 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-02.txt draft-iab-smart-object-workshop-03.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 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]), worked on a protocol survey document comparing [RFC5673], [RFC5548]), worked on a protocol survey comparing a number
a number of existing routing protocols of existing routing protocols, including Ad hoc On-Demand Distance
[I-D.ietf-roll-protocols-survey], including Ad hoc On-Demand Distance
Vector (AODV)-style of protocols [RFC3561], against the identified Vector (AODV)-style of protocols [RFC3561], against the identified
requirements. Although the survey document was abandoned and not requirements. The protocol survey [I-D.ietf-roll-protocols-survey]
published an RFC it serves as a historical data point. The ROLL WG was inconclusive and abandoned without giving rise to publication of
concluded that a new routing protocol satisfying the documented an RFC.
requirements has to be developed and the work on the RPL was started,
as the IETF routing protocol for smart object networks. The ROLL WG concluded that a new routing protocol satisfying the
documented requirements has to be developed and the work on the RPL
was started, as the IETF routing protocol for smart object networks.
Nevertheless, controversial discussions at the workshop about which Nevertheless, controversial discussions at the workshop about which
routing protocols is best in a given environment are still ongoing. routing protocols is best in a given environment are still ongoing.
Thomas Clausen, for example, argued for using an AODV-like routing Thomas Clausen, for example, argued for using an AODV-like routing
protocol in [Clausen]. 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
skipping to change at page 23, line 12 skipping to change at page 23, line 12
As described in this report part of the agenda was focused on the As described in this report part of the agenda was focused on the
discussion of security, see Section 3.3. discussion of security, see Section 3.3.
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all the participants for their position We would like to thank all the participants for their position
papers. The authors of the position papers were invited to the papers. The authors of the position papers were invited to the
workshop. workshop.
Big thanks to Elwyn Davies for helping us to fix language bugs. We Big thanks to Elwyn Davies for helping us to fix language bugs. We
would also like to thank Andrei Robachevsky for his review comments. would also like to thank Andrei Robachevsky and Thomas Clausen for
his review comments.
Additionally, we would like to thank Ericsson and Nokia Siemens Additionally, we would like to thank Ericsson and Nokia Siemens
Networks for their financial support. Networks for their financial support.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document does not require actions by IANA. This document does not require actions by IANA.
8. Informative References 8. Informative References
 End of changes. 4 change blocks. 
10 lines changed or deleted 12 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/