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 This document is not
	for publication, but rather is to be used as a template.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