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 This document is not
for publication, but rather is to be used as a template.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/