draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-08.txt | draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-09.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Network Working Group M. Richardson | Network Working Group M. Richardson | |||
Internet-Draft SSW | Internet-Draft SSW | |||
Intended status: Informational November 3, 2015 | Intended status: Informational May 3, 2016 | |||
Expires: May 6, 2016 | Expires: November 4, 2016 | |||
ROLL Applicability Statement Template | ROLL Applicability Statement Template | |||
draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-08 | draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-09 | |||
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 May 6, 2016. | This Internet-Draft will expire on November 4, 2016. | |||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2016 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
1.1. Relationship to other documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1.1. Relationship to other documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
1.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 1.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
1.4. Required Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 1.4. Required Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
1.5. Out of scope requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 1.5. Out of scope requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
2. Deployment Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2. Deployment Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
2.1. Network Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2.1. Network Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
2.2. Traffic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2.2. Traffic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
2.2.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 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 . . . . . . 5 | |||
2.2.5. Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm . . . 5 | 2.2.5. Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm . . . 5 | |||
2.2.6. Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast . . . . 5 | 2.2.6. Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast . . . . 5 | |||
2.2.7. RPL applicability per communication paradigm . . . . 5 | 2.2.7. RPL applicability per communication paradigm . . . . 5 | |||
2.3. Layer-2 applicability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 2.3. Layer-2 applicability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
3. Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 3. Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
4. RPL Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 4. RPL Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
4.1. RPL Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 4.1. RPL Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
4.1.1. RPL Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 4.1.1. RPL Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
4.1.2. Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 4.1.2. Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
4.1.3. DAO Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 4.1.3. DAO Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
4.1.4. Path Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4.1.4. Path Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
4.1.5. Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4.1.5. Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
4.1.6. DODAG Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4.1.6. DODAG Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
4.1.7. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4.1.7. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
4.1.8. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4.1.8. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
4.1.9. P2P communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4.1.9. P2P communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
4.1.10. IPv6 address configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4.1.10. IPv6 address configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
4.2. Layer-2 features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4.2. Layer-2 features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
4.2.1. Specifics about layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4.2.1. Specifics about layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
4.2.2. Services provided at layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4.2.2. Services provided at layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
4.2.3. 6LowPAN options assumed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4.2.3. 6LowPAN options assumed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
4.2.4. MLE and other things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4.2.4. MLE and other things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
skipping to change at page 3, line 40 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 40 ¶ | |||
a subset of these protocols and the conditions which make the subset | a subset of these protocols and the conditions which make the subset | |||
the correct choice. The text recommends and motivates the | the correct choice. The text recommends and motivates the | |||
accompanying parameter value ranges. Multiple applicability domains | accompanying parameter value ranges. Multiple applicability domains | |||
are recognized including: Building and Home, and Advanced Metering | are recognized including: Building and Home, and Advanced Metering | |||
Infrastructure. The applicability domains distinguish themselves in | Infrastructure. The applicability domains distinguish themselves in | |||
the way they are operated, their performance requirements, and the | the way they are operated, their performance requirements, and the | |||
most probable network structures. Each applicability statement | most probable network structures. Each applicability statement | |||
identifies the distinguishing properties according to a common set of | identifies the distinguishing properties according to a common set of | |||
subjects described in as many sections. | subjects described in as many sections. | |||
A common set of security threats are described in | A common set of security threats are described in [RFC7416]. The | |||
[I-D.ietf-roll-security-threats]. The applicability statements | applicability statements complement the security threats document by | |||
complement the security threats document by describing preferred | describing preferred security settings and solutions within the | |||
security settings and solutions within the applicability statement | applicability statement conditions. This applicability statements | |||
conditions. This applicability statements may recommend more light | may recommend more light weight security solutions and specify the | |||
weight security solutions and specify the conditions under which | conditions under which these solutions are appropriate. | |||
these solutions are appropriate. | ||||
1.2. Requirements Language | 1.2. Requirements Language | |||
(RFC2119 reference) | (RFC2119 reference) | |||
1.3. Terminology | 1.3. 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. | |||
skipping to change at page 9, line 26 ¶ | skipping to change at page 9, line 26 ¶ | |||
Directorate. | Directorate. | |||
A number of edits were contributed from Peter van der Stok, including | A number of edits were contributed from Peter van der Stok, including | |||
the MPL considerations/calculations | 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, DOI 10.17487/ | Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, | |||
RFC2119, March 1997, | DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | |||
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | |||
[I-D.ietf-roll-security-threats] | [RFC7416] Tsao, T., Alexander, R., Dohler, M., Daza, V., Lozano, A., | |||
Tsao, T., Alexander, R., Dohler, M., Daza, V., Lozano, A., | and M. Richardson, Ed., "A Security Threat Analysis for | |||
and M. Richardson, "A Security Threat Analysis for Routing | the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks | |||
Protocol for Low-power and lossy networks (RPL)", draft- | (RPLs)", RFC 7416, DOI 10.17487/RFC7416, January 2015, | |||
ietf-roll-security-threats-06 (work in progress), December | <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7416>. | |||
2013. | ||||
11.2. Informative References | 11.2. Informative References | |||
[RFC6206] Levis, P., Clausen, T., Hui, J., Gnawali, O., and J. Ko, | [RFC6206] Levis, P., Clausen, T., Hui, J., Gnawali, O., and J. Ko, | |||
"The Trickle Algorithm", RFC 6206, DOI 10.17487/RFC6206, | "The Trickle Algorithm", RFC 6206, DOI 10.17487/RFC6206, | |||
March 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6206>. | March 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6206>. | |||
[RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J., | [RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J., | |||
Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, | Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, | |||
JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for | JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for | |||
Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, DOI 10.17487/ | Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, | |||
RFC6550, March 2012, | DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012, | |||
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>. | <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>. | |||
Author's Address | Author's Address | |||
Michael C. Richardson | Michael C. Richardson | |||
Sandelman Software Works | Sandelman Software Works | |||
470 Dawson Avenue | 470 Dawson Avenue | |||
Ottawa, ON K1Z 5V7 | Ottawa, ON K1Z 5V7 | |||
CA | CA | |||
End of changes. 12 change blocks. | ||||
27 lines changed or deleted | 25 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ |