draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-02.txt		draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-03.txt
	Network Working Group M. Richardson		Network Working Group M. Richardson
	Internet-Draft SSW		Internet-Draft SSW
	Intended status: Informational September 16, 2013		Intended status: Informational September 17, 2013
	Expires: March 20, 2014		Expires: March 21, 2014
	ROLL Applicability Statement Template		ROLL Applicability Statement Template
	draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-02		draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-03
	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 This document is not
	for publication, but rather is to be used as a template.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
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	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 March 20, 2014.		This Internet-Draft will expire on March 21, 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
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.3. Required Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.3. Required Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.4. Out of scope requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.4. Out of scope requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Deployment Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2. Deployment Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.1. Network Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.1. Network Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.2. Traffic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.2. Traffic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.2.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.2.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.2.2. Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm . . . . . . . 5		2.2.2. Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm . . . . . . . 4
	2.2.3. Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) communication		2.2.3. Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) communication
	paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.2.4. Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm . . . . . . 5		2.2.4. Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm . . . . . . 4
	2.2.5. Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm . . . 5		2.2.5. Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm . . . 4
	2.2.6. Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast . . . . 5		2.2.6. Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast . . . . 4
	2.2.7. RPL applicability per communication paradigm . . . . . 5		2.2.7. RPL applicability per communication paradigm . . . . 4
	2.3. Layer-2 applicability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.3. Layer-2 applicability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3. Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 6		3. Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4. RPL Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4. RPL Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4.1. RPL Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.1. RPL Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.1.1. RPL Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.1.1. RPL Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.1.2. Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.1.2. Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.1.3. DAO Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.1.3. DAO Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.1.4. Path Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.1.4. Path Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.1.5. Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.1.5. Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.1.6. DODAG Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.1.6. DODAG Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.1.7. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.1.7. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.1.8. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.1.8. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.1.9. P2P communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.1.9. P2P communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.1.10. IPv6 address configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.1.10. IPv6 address configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.2. Layer-2 features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.2. Layer-2 features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.2.1. Specifics about layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.2.1. Specifics about layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.2.2. Services provided at layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.2.2. Services provided at layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.2.3. 6LowPAN options assumed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.2.3. 6LowPAN options assumed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.2.4. MLE and other things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.2.4. MLE and other things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.3. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . . 7		4.3. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . . 5
	4.3.1. Trickle Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.3.1. Trickle Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.3.2. Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.3.2. Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	5. MPL Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		5. MPL Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	5.1. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . . 8		5.1. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . . 7
	5.1.1. Trickle Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		5.1.1. Trickle Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5.1.2. Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		5.1.2. Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	7.1. Security Considerations during initial deployment . . . . 10		7.1. Security Considerations during initial deployment . . . . 7
	7.2. Security Considerations during incremental deployment . . 10		7.2. Security Considerations during incremental deployment . . 7
	7.3. Security Considerations for P2P uses . . . . . . . . . . . 10		7.3. Security Considerations for P2P uses . . . . . . . . . . 7
	8. Other Related Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		8. Other Related Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	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 4, line 27		skipping to change at page 3, line 35
	1.2. Terminology		1.2. Terminology
	A reference to draft-ietf-roll-terminology is appropriate. A		A reference to draft-ietf-roll-terminology is appropriate. A
	reference to layer-2 specific terminology and/or inclusion of any		reference to layer-2 specific terminology and/or inclusion of any
	terms that are normatively referenced is appropriate here.		terms that are normatively referenced is appropriate here.
	1.3. Required Reading		1.3. Required Reading
	References/Overview of requirements documents, both IETF and industry		References/Overview of requirements documents, both IETF and industry
	group. (two pages maximum. This text should be (very) technical,		group. (two pages maximum. This text should be (very) technical,
	should be aimed at IETF *participants*, not industry group		should be aimed at IETF *participants*, not industry group
	participants, and should explain this industries' specific issues)		participants, and should explain this industries' specific issues)
	1.4. Out of scope requirements		1.4. Out of scope requirements
	This should list other documents (if any) which deal with situations		This should list other documents (if any) which deal with situations
	where things are not in scope for this document.		where things are not in scope for this document.
	(For instance, the AMI document tries to cover both line-powered		(For instance, the AMI document tries to cover both line-powered
	urban metering networks, and energy-constrained metering networks,		urban metering networks, and energy-constrained metering networks,
	skipping to change at page 7, line 49		skipping to change at page 6, line 4
	4.2.2. Services provided at layer-2		4.2.2. Services provided at layer-2
	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. MPL Profile		5. MPL Profile
	This section should list the various features of MPL.		This section should list the various features of MPL. In considering
			the parameters, a number of questions come up:
			1) What are the maximum and minimum 1-hop MPL router neighbours of
			all the MPL routers?
			2) what is the arrival rate of new packets that need repetition in
			a MPL router
			3) Is there a deadline associated with the packets
			4) What is the shortest number of hops of the longest path between
			sources and destinations
			5) What are the values of the MAC: back-off values, retries,
			buffer size.
			6) What is the background load of other non MPL applications.
			7) arrival probability of 1-hop packets
			As the corresponding design space is incredibly large, probably only
			a limited subset of the design space is viable.
			Here is an example scenario:
			o 5 neighbours
			o once every 100 ms (rate at sources is once every 300-500 ms)
			o yes, 200 ms
			o 5 hops, with mostly 1 hop
			o no buffer, retry 1, back-off 2
			o absent
			o 100-80%
			leading to k=3-5, Imin =30-70 ms, repeat = 2, Imax n/a.
			It is crital operational boundary conditions together with
			appropriate MPL parameter values are published in this applicability
			statements. All applicability statements together may give a good
			hint which MPL parameters and boundary conditions to choose.
	5.1. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges		5.1. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges
	5.1.1. Trickle Parameters		5.1.1. Trickle Parameters
	5.1.1.1. Imin		5.1.1.1. Imin
	5.1.1.2. Imax		5.1.1.2. Imax
	5.1.2. Other Parameters		5.1.2. Other Parameters
	skipping to change at page 12, line 4		skipping to change at page 7, line 43
	(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)
	7.3. 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.)
	8. Other Related Protocols		8. Other Related Protocols
	9. IANA Considerations		9. IANA Considerations
	10. 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-
	draft-phinney-rpl-industrial-applicability-00.txt.		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, including
			the MPL considerations/calculations
	11. References		11. References
	11.1. 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.
	11.2. Informative References		11.2. Informative References
End of changes. 14 change blocks.
	64 lines changed or deleted		112 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/