--- 1/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-00.txt 2013-06-27 16:14:28.199338582 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-01.txt 2013-06-27 16:14:28.219339083 +0100 @@ -1,18 +1,18 @@ Network Working Group M. Richardson Internet-Draft SSW -Intended status: Informational March 11, 2013 -Expires: September 12, 2013 +Intended status: Informational June 27, 2013 +Expires: December 29, 2013 ROLL Applicability Statement Template - draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-00 + draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-01 Abstract This document is a template applicability statement for the Routing over Low-power and Lossy Networks (ROLL) WG. This document is not for publication, but rather is to be used as a template. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the @@ -21,21 +21,21 @@ 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 September 12, 2013. + This Internet-Draft will expire on December 29, 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 @@ -47,65 +47,63 @@ Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.3. Required Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4. 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 + 2.2. Traffic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 2.2.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 2.2.2. Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm . . . . . . . 5 + 2.2.3. 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 + 2.2.4. Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm . . . . . . 5 + 2.2.5. Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm . . . 5 + 2.2.6. Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast . . . . 5 + 2.2.7. 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 4.1.10. IPv6 address configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 4.2. Layer-two features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 4.2. Layer-2 features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2.1. Specifics about layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 4.2.2. Services provides at layer 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 4.2.2. Services provided at 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 6.3. Security Considerations for P2P uses . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Other Related Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 10.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 10.2. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 11. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1. Introduction This document describes a series of questions which should be answered. 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. @@ -137,44 +135,42 @@ or four documents, so this section should list the limits of what this document covers) 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 +2.2. 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 +2.2.1. General -2.2.3. Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm +2.2.2. Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm -2.2.4. Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) communication paradigm +2.2.3. Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) communication paradigm -2.2.5. Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm +2.2.4. Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm -2.2.6. Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm +2.2.5. Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm -2.2.7. Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast +2.2.6. Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast -2.2.8. RPL applicability per communication paradigm +2.2.7. RPL applicability per communication paradigm -2.3. Layer 2 applicability. +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. 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 @@ -206,29 +202,29 @@ 4.1.6. DODAG Repair 4.1.7. Multicast 4.1.8. Security 4.1.9. P2P communications 4.1.10. IPv6 address configuration -4.2. Layer-two features +4.2. Layer-2 features 4.2.1. Specifics about layer-2 this section should detail the specific layer-2 network technology that this document applies to. A class of technologies is generally not acceptable. -4.2.2. Services provides at layer 2 +4.2.2. Services provided at 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 @@ -250,30 +246,44 @@ removed if they are compromised) 6.3. Security Considerations for P2P uses (When layer-3 RPL security is used, P2P DODAGs are ephemeral, and may have different security needs.) 7. Other Related Protocols 8. IANA Considerations 9. Acknowledgements -10. References -10.1. Informative References + This document was created from a number source applicatbility + templates, including draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-06.txt, + draft-phinney-rpl-industrial-applicability-00.txt. -10.2. Normative References -11. Normative references + The document has benefitted from advance review by the IETF Security + Directorate. + + A number of edits were contributed from Peter van der Stok. + +10. References + +10.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. +10.2. Informative References + + [RFC6550] Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R., + Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP., and R. + Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and + Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012. + 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/