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

Versions: 00 01 02 draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template

Network Working Group                                      M. Richardson
Internet-Draft                                                       SSW
Intended status: Informational                         February 20, 2013
Expires: August 24, 2013


                 ROLL Applicability Statement Template
            draft-richardson-roll-applicability-template-02

Abstract

   This document is a template applicability statement for the Routing
   over Low-power and Lossy Networks (ROLL) WG.

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 24, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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
   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.






Richardson               Expires August 24, 2013                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility             February 2013


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  Required Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.3.  Out of scope requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Deployment Scenario  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  Network Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2.  Network Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.2.1.  Traffic Characteristics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.2.2.  General  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.2.3.  Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm  . . . . . . .  5
       2.2.4.  Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) communication
               paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.2.5.  Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm  . . . . . .  5
       2.2.6.  Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm  . . .  5
       2.2.7.  Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast  . . . .  5
       2.2.8.  RPL applicability per communication paradigm . . . . .  5
     2.3.  Layer 2 applicability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements  . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  RPL Profile  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1.  RPL Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.1.1.  RPL Instances  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.1.2.  Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.1.3.  DAO Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.1.4.  Path Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.1.5.  Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.1.6.  DODAG Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.1.7.  Multicast  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.1.8.  Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.1.9.  P2P communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.2.  Layer-two features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.2.1.  Need layer-2 expert here.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.2.2.  Security functions provided by layer-2.  . . . . . . .  7
       4.2.3.  6LowPAN options assumed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.2.4.  MLE and other things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.3.  Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges  . . . . . .  7
       4.3.1.  Trickle Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.3.2.  Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.1.  Security Considerations during initial deployment  . . . .  9
     6.2.  Security Considerations during incremental deployment  . .  9
   7.  Other Related Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   9.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     10.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13



Richardson               Expires August 24, 2013                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility             February 2013


     10.2. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   11. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
















































Richardson               Expires August 24, 2013                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility             February 2013


1.  Introduction

   This document is intended to remain as a Internet Draft.

   The idea is that current and future Applicability statements will use
   the table of contents provided.  The goal is that all applicability
   statements will have to cover the listed items as a minimum.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   (RFC2119 reference)

1.2.  Required Reading

   References/Overview of requirements documents, both IETF and industry
   group. (two pages maximum.  This text should be (very) technical,
   should be aimed at IETF *participants*, not industry group
   participants, and should explain this industries' specific issues)

1.3.  Out of scope requirements

   This should list other documents (if any) which deal with situations
   where things are not in scope for this document.

   (For instance, the AMI document tries to cover both line-powered
   urban metering networks, and energy-constrained metering networks,
   and also tries to deal with rural requirements.  This should be three
   or four documents, so this section should list the limits of what
   this document covers)






















Richardson               Expires August 24, 2013                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility             February 2013


2.  Deployment Scenario

2.1.  Network Topologies

   describe a single scenario, with possibly multiple topologies that a
   single utility would employ.

2.2.  Network Topologies

2.2.1.  Traffic Characteristics

   Explain what kind of traffic is being transmitted, where it is
   initiated, and what kinds of protocols (CoAP, multicast, HTTPS, etc.)
   are being used.  Explain what assumptions are being made about
   authentication and authorization in those protocols.

2.2.2.  General

2.2.3.  Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm

2.2.4.  Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) communication paradigm

2.2.5.  Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm

2.2.6.  Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm

2.2.7.  Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast

2.2.8.  RPL applicability per communication paradigm

2.3.  Layer 2 applicability.

   Explain what layer-2 technologies this statement applies to, and if
   there are options, they should be listed generally here, and
   specifically in section 4.2.
















Richardson               Expires August 24, 2013                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility             February 2013


3.  Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements

   This should explain in general terms how RPL is going to be used in
   this network topology.  If trees that are multiple layers deep are
   expected, then this should be described so that the fan out is
   understood.  Some sample topologies (from simulations) should be
   explained, perhaps with images references from other publications.

   This section should tell an *implementer* in a lab, having a
   simulation tool or a building/city/etc. to use as a testbed, how to
   construct an LLN of sufficient complexity (but not too much) to
   validate an implementation.







































Richardson               Expires August 24, 2013                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility             February 2013


4.  RPL Profile

   This section should list the various features of RPL plus other
   layers of the LLN, and how they will be used.

4.1.  RPL Features

4.1.1.  RPL Instances

4.1.2.  Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode

4.1.3.  DAO Policy

4.1.4.  Path Metrics

4.1.5.  Objective Function

4.1.6.  DODAG Repair

4.1.7.  Multicast

4.1.8.  Security

4.1.9.  P2P communications

4.2.  Layer-two features

4.2.1.  Need layer-2 expert here.

4.2.2.  Security functions provided by layer-2.

4.2.3.  6LowPAN options assumed.

4.2.4.  MLE and other things

4.3.  Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges

4.3.1.  Trickle Parameters

4.3.2.  Other Parameters











Richardson               Expires August 24, 2013                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility             February 2013


5.  Manageability Considerations


















































Richardson               Expires August 24, 2013                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility             February 2013


6.  Security Considerations

6.1.  Security Considerations during initial deployment

   (This section explains how nodes get their initial trust anchors,
   initial network keys.  It explains if this happens at the factory, in
   a deployment truck, if it is done in the field, perhaps like http://
   www.lix.polytechnique.fr/hipercom/SmartObjectSecurity/papers/
   CullenJennings.pdf)

6.2.  Security Considerations during incremental deployment

   (This section explains how that replaces a failed node takes on the
   dead nodes' identity, or not.  How are nodes retired.  How are nodes
   removed if they are compromised)




































Richardson               Expires August 24, 2013                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility             February 2013


7.  Other Related Protocols


















































Richardson               Expires August 24, 2013               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility             February 2013


8.  IANA Considerations


















































Richardson               Expires August 24, 2013               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility             February 2013


9.  Acknowledgements


















































Richardson               Expires August 24, 2013               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility             February 2013


10.  References

10.1.  Informative References

10.2.  Normative References














































Richardson               Expires August 24, 2013               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility             February 2013


11.  Normative references

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.















































Richardson               Expires August 24, 2013               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility             February 2013


Author's Address

   Michael C. Richardson
   Sandelman Software Works
   470 Dawson Avenue
   Ottawa, ON  K1Z 5V7
   CA

   Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
   URI:   http://www.sandelman.ca/









































Richardson               Expires August 24, 2013               [Page 15]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/