| Network Working Group | M. Richardson |
| Internet-Draft | SSW |
| Intended status: Informational | November 3, 2015 |
| Expires: May 6, 2016 |
ROLL Applicability Statement Template
draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-08
This document is a template applicability statement for the Routing over Low-power and Lossy Networks (ROLL) WG. This document is not for publication, but rather is to be used as a template.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 6, 2016.
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document describes a series of questions which should be answered. This document is intended to remain as a Internet Draft.
The idea is that current and future Applicability statements will use the table of contents provided. The goal is that all applicability statements will have to cover the listed items as a minimum.
EDITORIAL: The following should appear in all applicability statements:
ROLL has specified a set of routing protocols for Lossy and Low-resource Networks (LLN) [RFC6550]. This applicability text describes a subset of these protocols and the conditions which make the subset the correct choice. The text recommends and motivates the accompanying parameter value ranges. Multiple applicability domains are recognized including: Building and Home, and Advanced Metering Infrastructure. The applicability domains distinguish themselves in the way they are operated, their performance requirements, and the most probable network structures. Each applicability statement identifies the distinguishing properties according to a common set of subjects described in as many sections.
A common set of security threats are described in [I-D.ietf-roll-security-threats]. The applicability statements complement the security threats document by describing preferred security settings and solutions within the applicability statement conditions. This applicability statements may recommend more light weight security solutions and specify the conditions under which these solutions are appropriate.
(RFC2119 reference)
A reference to draft-ietf-roll-terminology is appropriate. A reference to layer-2 specific terminology and/or inclusion of any terms that are normatively referenced is appropriate here.
References/Overview of requirements documents, both IETF and industry group. (two pages maximum. This text should be (very) technical, should be aimed at IETF *participants*, not industry group participants, and should explain this industries' specific issues)
This should list other documents (if any) which deal with situations where things are not in scope for this document.
(For instance, the AMI document tries to cover both line-powered urban metering networks, and energy-constrained metering networks, and also tries to deal with rural requirements. This should be three or four documents, so this section should list the limits of what this document covers)
describe a single scenario, with possibly multiple topologies that a single utility would employ.
Explain what kind of traffic is being transmitted, where it is initiated, and what kinds of protocols (CoAP, multicast, HTTPS, etc.) are being used. Explain what assumptions are being made about authentication and authorization in those protocols.
Explain what layer-2 technologies this statement applies to, and if there are options, they should be listed generally here, and specifically in section 4.2.
This should explain in general terms how RPL is going to be used in this network topology. If trees that are multiple layers deep are expected, then this should be described so that the fan out is understood. Some sample topologies (from simulations) should be explained, perhaps with images references from other publications.
This section should tell an *implementer* in a lab, having a simulation tool or a building/city/etc. to use as a testbed, how to construct an LLN of sufficient complexity (but not too much) to validate an implementation.
This section should list the various features of RPL plus other layers of the LLN, and how they will be used.
this section should detail the specific layer-2 network technology that this document applies to. A class of technologies is generally not acceptable.
This section is intended to document the specific value (or ranges) appropriate for this kind of deployment. This includes trickle specific parameters such as those of RFC6550, section 8.3.1: Imin (DIOInternvalMin), Imax (DIOIntrevalDoublings), and k (DIORedundancyConstant). While it is not necessary to hard code these parameters into RPL nodes, as they are announced as part of the DIO message, it is important for researchers who are trying to validate the convergence properties of the resulting deployment to understand what values have been selected.
There are additional values which are present in the DODAG Configuration option. The purpose of this section is to: a) document what values are configured, b) if a default value is used, if it is appropriate for this deployment.
These values include: MaxRankIncrease, MinHopRankIncrease, the Objective Code Point to use, Default Lifetime, Lifetime Units...
In addition, the kinds of metrics which will be used (RFC6551) needs to be specified. If Objective Function 0 (RFC6552) is used, then it specifies a number of values, but also needs definitions of the stretch_of_rank, and rank_factor.
If MRHOF (RFC6719) is used, then section 5 of this document requires selection of: MAX_LINK_METRIC, MAX_PATH_COST, PARENT_SWITCH_THRESHOLD, PARENT_SET_SIZE, and ALLOW_FLOATING_ROOT.
This section should list the various features of MPL. In considering the parameters, a number of questions come up:
As the corresponding design space is incredibly large, probably only a limited subset of the design space is viable.
Here is an example scenario:
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.
(This section explains how nodes get their initial trust anchors, 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://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/hipercom/SmartObjectSecurity/papers/CullenJennings.pdf)
(This section explains how that replaces a failed node takes on the dead nodes' identity, or not. How are nodes retired. How are nodes removed if they are compromised)
(When layer-3 RPL security is used, P2P DODAGs are ephemeral, and may have different security needs.)
This document was created from a number source applicatbility templates, including draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-06.txt, draft-phinney-rpl-industrial-applicability-00.txt.
The document has benefitted from advance review by the IETF Security Directorate.
A number of edits were contributed from Peter van der Stok, including the MPL considerations/calculations
| [RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. |
| [I-D.ietf-roll-security-threats] | Tsao, T., Alexander, R., Dohler, M., Daza, V., Lozano, A. and M. Richardson, "A Security Threat Analysis for Routing Protocol for Low-power and lossy networks (RPL)", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-06, December 2013. |
| [RFC6206] | Levis, P., Clausen, T., Hui, J., Gnawali, O. and J. Ko, "The Trickle Algorithm", RFC 6206, DOI 10.17487/RFC6206, March 2011. |
| [RFC6550] | Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP. and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012. |