IETF82 ROLL Session 2011-11-14 1300-1500 Slides Presented 1-roll-intro 2-RPL-AMI 5-RPL-Asym 2-RPL-AMI draft-sehgal-roll-rpl-mib-02 draft-goyal-roll-dis-modifications-00 Agenda/admin (Chairs - 5mn) [5] 1) WG Status (Chairs - 10 mn) [15] - A number of documents being worked on. Waiting on two 6man IDs so RPL RFC can progress. The 6man documents have completed LC but have not yet moved into the IESG queue. - Jari to take current version to IESG - One open discuss on the security framework document. 2) "Applicability Statement for the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) in AMI Networks" - draft-popa-roll-applicability-ami-04 (Jorjeta - 10mn) [25] - A number of participants were concerned that the document excluded comprehensive deployment information and detailed scalability information. - Co-chair reminded WG that it is important have scaling and analysis detail but this requires operators to deploy the technology and data to be collected, so further study and new documents can be performed. - Other members of the WG echoed co-chairs comment. - AD reminded authors that generally this kind of document (does not mandate behaviour or protocol mechanisms) would tend to be an informational document. - ROLL participants are encouraged to share deployment and scaling information, including papers, on the mailing list. 3) Update on P2P (Emmanuel - 15mn) [40] * Update on the RPL P2P Work * Updated on draft-ietf-roll-p2p-measurement-02 - It was highlighted that we now have an extension of an existing RPL protocol. It might be useful to study and document interaction or co-existence of the existing and extended RPL protocol on multiple or even the same devices, in the same network. The co-author/presenter mentioned that further analysis would be beneficial. - AD reiterated that co-existence and backward compatibility should be described in the document, as well as what would happen of you attached a node that supported the extended RPL protocol to a network that did not support the extended RPL functionality. 4) "RPL applicability in industrial networks" - draft-phinney-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability-00 (Robert Assimiti - 10mn) [40] - Recent updates to the document include OF discussion. Although OF 0 does not use the metrics draft. Additionally OF 0 does not provide multi-hop metrics. - Co-author/presenter underlined that Industrial Networks applications/users are not generally looking for another routing scheme, which will require an applicability document and empirical data. - The draft is 00, so the WG are invited to review and comment to help develop the document. Section 5 is a good start but requires significant development. - Co-chair highlighted that if IPR is held then the correct IETF IPR disclosure mechanism should be used. AD asked co-author/presenter to confirm IPR statement and if the IP is required in order to deploy. The co-author/presenter will refer the question to the relevant co-author and IPR holder. - The backbone router is mentioned, but the interaction of how it is used could be further documented. 5) "RPL adaptation for asymmetrical links" - draft-thubert-roll-asymlink-00 (Pascal - 10mn) [60] - It was recommend that the symmetric and asymmetric terminology in the document is reviewed, and replaced with unidirectional and bidirectional terms instead. - Co-author/presenter requested WG review and feedback. 6) Discussion and status on the security work (Chair + Rene - 15mn) [75] - Presenter did not attend. - Co-chair thanked authors for focusing the document in a recent revision to refer to routing security, specifically RPL security issues. However, the document would benefit from a design team to help polish this framework document, and synch with the RPL document (version 19). 7) Definition of Managed Objects for the IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (RPL) draft-sehgal-roll-rpl-mib-01 (Juergen - 5mn) - NOT IN CHARTER - [80] - Co-author/presenter requested that WG members review the MIB to make sure that the current implementation covers counters and tables that people would like to see in a MIB. - AD asked presenter if SNMP is the preferred solution, or if the authors had considered other management mechanisms. - Co-author/presenter mentioned that SNMP was the initial preferred solution. - The WG also needs to consider if we need separate OF MIBs or if they can combined into a single MIB. - The WG was also reminded that it may be beneficial to generate a generic/abstracted management model document that is management protocol independent. - Co-chair reiterated that the management object shouldn’t dictate internal implementation. It should permit mapping from internals. - The question was asked regarding the state requirements for SNMP on network devices. The co-author/presenter mentioned that although SNMP is obviously required which requires additional state. The slides include a reference to paper discussing the memory costs of the implementation. 8) DIS Modifications - draft-goyal-roll-dis-modifications-00 (Dominique Barthel - 10mn) [90] - The question was asked if this new behaviour should be mandated. Co-chairs mentioned that although discovery of inconstancy is important, discovery of inconstancy across all nodes may be problematic. Further study on if both behaviour modes need to be support, will require further analysis.