draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-01.txt		draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-02.txt
	Network Working Group M. Richardson		Network Working Group M. Richardson
	Internet-Draft SSW		Internet-Draft SSW
	Intended status: Informational June 27, 2013		Intended status: Informational September 16, 2013
	Expires: December 29, 2013		Expires: March 20, 2014
	ROLL Applicability Statement Template		ROLL Applicability Statement Template
	draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-01		draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-02
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document is a template applicability statement for the Routing		This document is a template applicability statement for the Routing
	over Low-power and Lossy Networks (ROLL) WG. This document is not		over Low-power and Lossy Networks (ROLL) WG. This document is not
	for publication, but rather is to be used as a template.		for publication, but rather is to be used as a template.
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	skipping to change at page 1, line 32		skipping to change at page 1, line 32
	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 December 29, 2013.		This Internet-Draft will expire on March 20, 2014.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2013 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 2, line 45		skipping to change at page 2, line 45
	4.1.9. P2P communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.1.9. P2P communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.1.10. IPv6 address configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.1.10. IPv6 address configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.2. Layer-2 features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.2. Layer-2 features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.2.1. Specifics about layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.2.1. Specifics about layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.2.2. Services provided at layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.2.2. Services provided at layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.2.3. 6LowPAN options assumed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.2.3. 6LowPAN options assumed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.2.4. MLE and other things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.2.4. MLE and other things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.3. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . . 7		4.3. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . . 7
	4.3.1. Trickle Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.3.1. Trickle Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.3.2. Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.3.2. Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		5. MPL Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5.1. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . . 8
	6.1. Security Considerations during initial deployment . . . . 9		5.1.1. Trickle Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	6.2. Security Considerations during incremental deployment . . 9		5.1.2. Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	6.3. Security Considerations for P2P uses . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	7. Other Related Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		7.1. Security Considerations during initial deployment . . . . 10
	9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		7.2. Security Considerations during incremental deployment . . 10
	10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		7.3. Security Considerations for P2P uses . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8. Other Related Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
			11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
			11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
			11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
			Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This document describes a series of questions which should be		This document describes a series of questions which should be
	answered. This document is intended to remain as a Internet Draft.		answered. This document is intended to remain as a Internet Draft.
	The idea is that current and future Applicability statements will use		The idea is that current and future Applicability statements will use
	the table of contents provided. The goal is that all applicability		the table of contents provided. The goal is that all applicability
	statements will have to cover the listed items as a minimum.		statements will have to cover the listed items as a minimum.
	skipping to change at page 8, line 4		skipping to change at page 8, line 4
	4.2.3. 6LowPAN options assumed.		4.2.3. 6LowPAN options assumed.
	4.2.4. MLE and other things		4.2.4. MLE and other things
	4.3. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges		4.3. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges
	4.3.1. Trickle Parameters		4.3.1. Trickle Parameters
	4.3.2. Other Parameters		4.3.2. Other Parameters
	5. Manageability Considerations		5. MPL Profile
	6. Security Considerations
	6.1. Security Considerations during initial deployment		This section should list the various features of MPL.
			5.1. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges
			5.1.1. Trickle Parameters
			5.1.1.1. Imin
			5.1.1.2. Imax
			5.1.2. Other Parameters
			5.1.2.1. Hot Limit
			6. Manageability Considerations
			7. Security Considerations
			7.1. Security Considerations during initial deployment
	(This section explains how nodes get their initial trust anchors,		(This section explains how nodes get their initial trust anchors,
	initial network keys. It explains if this happens at the factory, in		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://		a deployment truck, if it is done in the field, perhaps like http://
	www.lix.polytechnique.fr/hipercom/SmartObjectSecurity/papers/		www.lix.polytechnique.fr/hipercom/SmartObjectSecurity/papers/
	CullenJennings.pdf)		CullenJennings.pdf)
	6.2. Security Considerations during incremental deployment		7.2. Security Considerations during incremental deployment
	(This section explains how that replaces a failed node takes on the		(This section explains how that replaces a failed node takes on the
	dead nodes' identity, or not. How are nodes retired. How are nodes		dead nodes' identity, or not. How are nodes retired. How are nodes
	removed if they are compromised)		removed if they are compromised)
	6.3. Security Considerations for P2P uses		7.3. Security Considerations for P2P uses
	(When layer-3 RPL security is used, P2P DODAGs are ephemeral, and may		(When layer-3 RPL security is used, P2P DODAGs are ephemeral, and may
	have different security needs.)		have different security needs.)
	7. Other Related Protocols		8. Other Related Protocols
	8. IANA Considerations		9. IANA Considerations
	9. Acknowledgements		10. Acknowledgements
	This document was created from a number source applicatbility		This document was created from a number source applicatbility
	templates, including draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-06.txt,		templates, including draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-06.txt,
	draft-phinney-rpl-industrial-applicability-00.txt.		draft-phinney-rpl-industrial-applicability-00.txt.
	The document has benefitted from advance review by the IETF Security		The document has benefitted from advance review by the IETF Security
	Directorate.		Directorate.
	A number of edits were contributed from Peter van der Stok.		A number of edits were contributed from Peter van der Stok.
	10. References		11. References
	10.1. Normative References		11.1. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	10.2. Informative References		11.2. Informative References
	[RFC6550] Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R.,		[RFC6550] Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R.,
	Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP., and R.		Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP., and R.
	Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and		Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and
	Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012.		Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012.
	Author's Address		Author's Address
	Michael C. Richardson		Michael C. Richardson
	Sandelman Software Works		Sandelman Software Works
End of changes. 12 change blocks.
	27 lines changed or deleted		46 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/