[Roll] proposal to abandon draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 05 February 2014 15:32 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 689ED1A016F; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 07:32:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.019
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qaBH2YdNmSWd; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 07:32:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1E571A0192; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 07:32:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0515020033; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 11:49:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 04A60647CA; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 10:32:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E318A63B88; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 10:32:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, tisch <6tisch@ietf.org>
X-Attribution: mcr
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:32:49 -0500
Message-ID: <11491.1391614369@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Subject: [Roll] proposal to abandon draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 15:32:54 -0000
Last summer during the chartering process of 6tisch, I asked if 6tisch wanted or or ought to adopt draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability. We did not reach a clear conclusion, and agreed to revisit the question later on. EXEC SUMMARY: I want to propose that the ROLL WG abandon this document as not particularly useful to real industry. If this document normatively references 6tisch, it will in essence be obsoleted by the documents it references. If the document does no normatively reference 6tisch, it may have no value. 6tisch will not adopt this document, as it has equivalent documents already planned. The value of this document may have been simply to make the motiviation for creating 6tisch clear. AUDIENCE: First, I want to recognize that the group of people working on 6tisch are people who think that they can not deploy into industrial settings without availability of deterministic behaviour. Thus I want to acknowledge that asking 6tisch people if deterministic behaviour is useful is preaching to the choir. Second, I would ask that those of you who are in other SDOs that deal with this kind of thing (IEC, IEEE, ZigbeeIP) where I, a non-member, can not post, to please forward this email and/or a link to the thread. BACKGROUND: The document deals with using RPL in Industrial settings, and does a very good job of explaining how things operate in that space. The document includes a diagram in section 2.1.1, on page 7: > It appears from the above sections that whether and the way RPL can > be applied for a given flow depends both on the deployment scenario > and on the class of application / traffic. At a high level, this can > be summarized by the following matrix: > +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+ > | Phase \ Class | 0 1 2 3 4 5 | > +=====================+================================================+ > | Construction | X X X X | > +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+ > | Planned startup | X X X X | > +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+ > | Normal operation | ? ? ? | > +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+ > | Planned shutdown | X X X X | > +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+ > |Plant decommissioning| X X X X | > +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+ > | Recovery and repair | X X X X X X | > +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+ > > > ? : typically usable for all but higher-rate classes 0,1 PS traffic === An X denotes that a non-deterministric LLN using RPL could be used in uring many phases of a plant, but it can not be used for class 0,1 traffic during "Normal Operation". That is, an RPL LLN is useful during exceptional times, but not during normal times. Whether normal operation can be served by a deterministric (6tisch) network, or whether it will require wired operation is clearly going to be decided on a case-by-case basis. QUESTION: The group of deployments for which "Normal Operation" can be satisfied by a 6tisch based solution, would in general be covered by 6tisch. In particular whatever (security) bootstrap process used by 6tisch would be used during the other phases, so any security analysis done in this document is not useful. If the deployment can not be satisfied by 6tisch (e.g Normal Operation requires wires, etc.), then this document may well have some value. In that case, this document might have value, but we have not at present identified the constituency that would be willing to work on this document. Does such a consitutency exist? If it does not, then I suggest that it is not worth the cost to the IETF to publish this document. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/
- [Roll] proposal to abandon draft-ietf-roll-rpl-in… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] proposal to abandon draft-ietf-roll-rp… Ines Robles