Internet DRAFT - draft-richardson-roll-applicability-template
draft-richardson-roll-applicability-template
Network Working Group M. Richardson
Internet-Draft SSW
Intended status: Informational February 20, 2013
Expires: August 24, 2013
ROLL Applicability Statement Template
draft-richardson-roll-applicability-template-02
Abstract
This document is a template applicability statement for the Routing
over Low-power and Lossy Networks (ROLL) WG.
Status of this Memo
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 August 24, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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.
Richardson Expires August 24, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft roll-applicatbility February 2013
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Required Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Out of scope requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Deployment Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Network Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Network Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1. Traffic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.3. Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm . . . . . . . 5
2.2.4. Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) communication
paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.5. Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm . . . . . . 5
2.2.6. Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm . . . 5
2.2.7. Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast . . . . 5
2.2.8. RPL applicability per communication paradigm . . . . . 5
2.3. Layer 2 applicability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. RPL Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. RPL Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.1. RPL Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.2. Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.3. DAO Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.4. Path Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.5. Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.6. DODAG Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.7. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.8. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.9. P2P communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Layer-two features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.1. Need layer-2 expert here. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.2. Security functions provided by layer-2. . . . . . . . 7
4.2.3. 6LowPAN options assumed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.4. MLE and other things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . . 7
4.3.1. Trickle Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3.2. Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Security Considerations during initial deployment . . . . 9
6.2. Security Considerations during incremental deployment . . 9
7. Other Related Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Richardson Expires August 24, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft roll-applicatbility February 2013
10.2. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Richardson Expires August 24, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft roll-applicatbility February 2013
1. Introduction
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.
1.1. Requirements Language
(RFC2119 reference)
1.2. Required Reading
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)
1.3. Out of scope requirements
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)
Richardson Expires August 24, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft roll-applicatbility February 2013
2. Deployment Scenario
2.1. Network Topologies
describe a single scenario, with possibly multiple topologies that a
single utility would employ.
2.2. Network Topologies
2.2.1. Traffic Characteristics
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.
2.2.2. General
2.2.3. Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm
2.2.4. Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) communication paradigm
2.2.5. Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm
2.2.6. Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm
2.2.7. Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast
2.2.8. RPL applicability per communication paradigm
2.3. Layer 2 applicability.
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.
Richardson Expires August 24, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft roll-applicatbility February 2013
3. Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements
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.
Richardson Expires August 24, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft roll-applicatbility February 2013
4. RPL Profile
This section should list the various features of RPL plus other
layers of the LLN, and how they will be used.
4.1. RPL Features
4.1.1. RPL Instances
4.1.2. Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode
4.1.3. DAO Policy
4.1.4. Path Metrics
4.1.5. Objective Function
4.1.6. DODAG Repair
4.1.7. Multicast
4.1.8. Security
4.1.9. P2P communications
4.2. Layer-two features
4.2.1. Need layer-2 expert here.
4.2.2. Security functions provided by layer-2.
4.2.3. 6LowPAN options assumed.
4.2.4. MLE and other things
4.3. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges
4.3.1. Trickle Parameters
4.3.2. Other Parameters
Richardson Expires August 24, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft roll-applicatbility February 2013
5. Manageability Considerations
Richardson Expires August 24, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft roll-applicatbility February 2013
6. Security Considerations
6.1. Security Considerations during initial deployment
(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)
6.2. Security Considerations during incremental deployment
(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)
Richardson Expires August 24, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft roll-applicatbility February 2013
7. Other Related Protocols
Richardson Expires August 24, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft roll-applicatbility February 2013
8. IANA Considerations
Richardson Expires August 24, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft roll-applicatbility February 2013
9. Acknowledgements
Richardson Expires August 24, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft roll-applicatbility February 2013
10. References
10.1. Informative References
10.2. Normative References
Richardson Expires August 24, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft roll-applicatbility February 2013
11. Normative references
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Richardson Expires August 24, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft roll-applicatbility February 2013
Author's Address
Michael C. Richardson
Sandelman Software Works
470 Dawson Avenue
Ottawa, ON K1Z 5V7
CA
Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
URI: http://www.sandelman.ca/
Richardson Expires August 24, 2013 [Page 15]
