idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the document. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (June 27, 2013) is 3949 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 270, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6550' is defined on line 275, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group M. Richardson 3 Internet-Draft SSW 4 Intended status: Informational June 27, 2013 5 Expires: December 29, 2013 7 ROLL Applicability Statement Template 8 draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-01 10 Abstract 12 This document is a template applicability statement for the Routing 13 over Low-power and Lossy Networks (ROLL) WG. This document is not 14 for publication, but rather is to be used as a template. 16 Status of this Memo 18 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 19 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 23 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 24 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 29, 2013. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 36 document authors. All rights reserved. 38 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 39 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 40 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 41 publication of this document. Please review these documents 42 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 43 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 44 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 45 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 46 described in the Simplified BSD License. 48 Table of Contents 50 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 51 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 52 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 53 1.3. Required Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 1.4. Out of scope requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 2. Deployment Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 2.1. Network Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 2.2. Traffic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 2.2.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 2.2.2. Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm . . . . . . . 5 60 2.2.3. Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) communication 61 paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 2.2.4. Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm . . . . . . 5 63 2.2.5. Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm . . . 5 64 2.2.6. Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast . . . . 5 65 2.2.7. RPL applicability per communication paradigm . . . . . 5 66 2.3. Layer-2 applicability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 3. Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 4. RPL Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 4.1. RPL Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 4.1.1. RPL Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 71 4.1.2. Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 72 4.1.3. DAO Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 73 4.1.4. Path Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 74 4.1.5. Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 75 4.1.6. DODAG Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 76 4.1.7. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 77 4.1.8. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 78 4.1.9. P2P communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 79 4.1.10. IPv6 address configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 80 4.2. Layer-2 features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 81 4.2.1. Specifics about layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 82 4.2.2. Services provided at layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 83 4.2.3. 6LowPAN options assumed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 84 4.2.4. MLE and other things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 85 4.3. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . . 7 86 4.3.1. Trickle Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 87 4.3.2. Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 88 5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 89 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 90 6.1. Security Considerations during initial deployment . . . . 9 91 6.2. Security Considerations during incremental deployment . . 9 92 6.3. Security Considerations for P2P uses . . . . . . . . . . . 9 93 7. Other Related Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 94 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 95 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 96 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 97 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 98 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 99 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 101 1. Introduction 103 This document describes a series of questions which should be 104 answered. This document is intended to remain as a Internet Draft. 106 The idea is that current and future Applicability statements will use 107 the table of contents provided. The goal is that all applicability 108 statements will have to cover the listed items as a minimum. 110 1.1. Requirements Language 112 (RFC2119 reference) 114 1.2. Terminology 116 A reference to draft-ietf-roll-terminology is appropriate. A 117 reference to layer-2 specific terminology and/or inclusion of any 118 terms that are normatively referenced is appropriate here. 120 1.3. Required Reading 122 References/Overview of requirements documents, both IETF and industry 123 group. (two pages maximum. This text should be (very) technical, 124 should be aimed at IETF *participants*, not industry group 125 participants, and should explain this industries' specific issues) 127 1.4. Out of scope requirements 129 This should list other documents (if any) which deal with situations 130 where things are not in scope for this document. 132 (For instance, the AMI document tries to cover both line-powered 133 urban metering networks, and energy-constrained metering networks, 134 and also tries to deal with rural requirements. This should be three 135 or four documents, so this section should list the limits of what 136 this document covers) 138 2. Deployment Scenario 140 2.1. Network Topologies 142 describe a single scenario, with possibly multiple topologies that a 143 single utility would employ. 145 2.2. Traffic Characteristics 147 Explain what kind of traffic is being transmitted, where it is 148 initiated, and what kinds of protocols (CoAP, multicast, HTTPS, etc.) 149 are being used. Explain what assumptions are being made about 150 authentication and authorization in those protocols. 152 2.2.1. General 154 2.2.2. Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm 156 2.2.3. Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) communication paradigm 158 2.2.4. Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm 160 2.2.5. Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm 162 2.2.6. Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast 164 2.2.7. RPL applicability per communication paradigm 166 2.3. Layer-2 applicability. 168 Explain what layer-2 technologies this statement applies to, and if 169 there are options, they should be listed generally here, and 170 specifically in section 4.2. 172 3. Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements 174 This should explain in general terms how RPL is going to be used in 175 this network topology. If trees that are multiple layers deep are 176 expected, then this should be described so that the fan out is 177 understood. Some sample topologies (from simulations) should be 178 explained, perhaps with images references from other publications. 180 This section should tell an *implementer* in a lab, having a 181 simulation tool or a building/city/etc. to use as a testbed, how to 182 construct an LLN of sufficient complexity (but not too much) to 183 validate an implementation. 185 4. RPL Profile 187 This section should list the various features of RPL plus other 188 layers of the LLN, and how they will be used. 190 4.1. RPL Features 192 4.1.1. RPL Instances 194 4.1.2. Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode 196 4.1.3. DAO Policy 198 4.1.4. Path Metrics 200 4.1.5. Objective Function 202 4.1.6. DODAG Repair 204 4.1.7. Multicast 206 4.1.8. Security 208 4.1.9. P2P communications 210 4.1.10. IPv6 address configuration 212 4.2. Layer-2 features 214 4.2.1. Specifics about layer-2 216 this section should detail the specific layer-2 network technology 217 that this document applies to. A class of technologies is generally 218 not acceptable. 220 4.2.2. Services provided at layer-2 222 4.2.3. 6LowPAN options assumed. 224 4.2.4. MLE and other things 226 4.3. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges 228 4.3.1. Trickle Parameters 230 4.3.2. Other Parameters 231 5. Manageability Considerations 232 6. Security Considerations 234 6.1. Security Considerations during initial deployment 236 (This section explains how nodes get their initial trust anchors, 237 initial network keys. It explains if this happens at the factory, in 238 a deployment truck, if it is done in the field, perhaps like http:// 239 www.lix.polytechnique.fr/hipercom/SmartObjectSecurity/papers/ 240 CullenJennings.pdf) 242 6.2. Security Considerations during incremental deployment 244 (This section explains how that replaces a failed node takes on the 245 dead nodes' identity, or not. How are nodes retired. How are nodes 246 removed if they are compromised) 248 6.3. Security Considerations for P2P uses 250 (When layer-3 RPL security is used, P2P DODAGs are ephemeral, and may 251 have different security needs.) 253 7. Other Related Protocols 254 8. IANA Considerations 255 9. Acknowledgements 257 This document was created from a number source applicatbility 258 templates, including draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-06.txt, 259 draft-phinney-rpl-industrial-applicability-00.txt. 261 The document has benefitted from advance review by the IETF Security 262 Directorate. 264 A number of edits were contributed from Peter van der Stok. 266 10. References 268 10.1. Normative References 270 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 271 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 273 10.2. Informative References 275 [RFC6550] Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R., 276 Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP., and R. 277 Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and 278 Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012. 280 Author's Address 282 Michael C. Richardson 283 Sandelman Software Works 284 470 Dawson Avenue 285 Ottawa, ON K1Z 5V7 286 CA 288 Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca 289 URI: http://www.sandelman.ca/