idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-02.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 (September 16, 2013) is 3868 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 289, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6550' is defined on line 294, 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 September 16, 2013 5 Expires: March 20, 2014 7 ROLL Applicability Statement Template 8 draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-02 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 March 20, 2014. 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. MPL Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 89 5.1. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . . 8 90 5.1.1. Trickle Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 91 5.1.2. Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 92 6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 93 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 94 7.1. Security Considerations during initial deployment . . . . 10 95 7.2. Security Considerations during incremental deployment . . 10 96 7.3. Security Considerations for P2P uses . . . . . . . . . . . 10 97 8. Other Related Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 98 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 99 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 100 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 101 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 102 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 103 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 105 1. Introduction 107 This document describes a series of questions which should be 108 answered. This document is intended to remain as a Internet Draft. 110 The idea is that current and future Applicability statements will use 111 the table of contents provided. The goal is that all applicability 112 statements will have to cover the listed items as a minimum. 114 1.1. Requirements Language 116 (RFC2119 reference) 118 1.2. Terminology 120 A reference to draft-ietf-roll-terminology is appropriate. A 121 reference to layer-2 specific terminology and/or inclusion of any 122 terms that are normatively referenced is appropriate here. 124 1.3. Required Reading 126 References/Overview of requirements documents, both IETF and industry 127 group. (two pages maximum. This text should be (very) technical, 128 should be aimed at IETF *participants*, not industry group 129 participants, and should explain this industries' specific issues) 131 1.4. Out of scope requirements 133 This should list other documents (if any) which deal with situations 134 where things are not in scope for this document. 136 (For instance, the AMI document tries to cover both line-powered 137 urban metering networks, and energy-constrained metering networks, 138 and also tries to deal with rural requirements. This should be three 139 or four documents, so this section should list the limits of what 140 this document covers) 142 2. Deployment Scenario 144 2.1. Network Topologies 146 describe a single scenario, with possibly multiple topologies that a 147 single utility would employ. 149 2.2. Traffic Characteristics 151 Explain what kind of traffic is being transmitted, where it is 152 initiated, and what kinds of protocols (CoAP, multicast, HTTPS, etc.) 153 are being used. Explain what assumptions are being made about 154 authentication and authorization in those protocols. 156 2.2.1. General 158 2.2.2. Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm 160 2.2.3. Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) communication paradigm 162 2.2.4. Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm 164 2.2.5. Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm 166 2.2.6. Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast 168 2.2.7. RPL applicability per communication paradigm 170 2.3. Layer-2 applicability. 172 Explain what layer-2 technologies this statement applies to, and if 173 there are options, they should be listed generally here, and 174 specifically in section 4.2. 176 3. Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements 178 This should explain in general terms how RPL is going to be used in 179 this network topology. If trees that are multiple layers deep are 180 expected, then this should be described so that the fan out is 181 understood. Some sample topologies (from simulations) should be 182 explained, perhaps with images references from other publications. 184 This section should tell an *implementer* in a lab, having a 185 simulation tool or a building/city/etc. to use as a testbed, how to 186 construct an LLN of sufficient complexity (but not too much) to 187 validate an implementation. 189 4. RPL Profile 191 This section should list the various features of RPL plus other 192 layers of the LLN, and how they will be used. 194 4.1. RPL Features 196 4.1.1. RPL Instances 198 4.1.2. Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode 200 4.1.3. DAO Policy 202 4.1.4. Path Metrics 204 4.1.5. Objective Function 206 4.1.6. DODAG Repair 208 4.1.7. Multicast 210 4.1.8. Security 212 4.1.9. P2P communications 214 4.1.10. IPv6 address configuration 216 4.2. Layer-2 features 218 4.2.1. Specifics about layer-2 220 this section should detail the specific layer-2 network technology 221 that this document applies to. A class of technologies is generally 222 not acceptable. 224 4.2.2. Services provided at layer-2 226 4.2.3. 6LowPAN options assumed. 228 4.2.4. MLE and other things 230 4.3. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges 232 4.3.1. Trickle Parameters 234 4.3.2. Other Parameters 235 5. MPL Profile 237 This section should list the various features of MPL. 239 5.1. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges 241 5.1.1. Trickle Parameters 243 5.1.1.1. Imin 245 5.1.1.2. Imax 247 5.1.2. Other Parameters 249 5.1.2.1. Hot Limit 250 6. Manageability Considerations 251 7. Security Considerations 253 7.1. Security Considerations during initial deployment 255 (This section explains how nodes get their initial trust anchors, 256 initial network keys. It explains if this happens at the factory, in 257 a deployment truck, if it is done in the field, perhaps like http:// 258 www.lix.polytechnique.fr/hipercom/SmartObjectSecurity/papers/ 259 CullenJennings.pdf) 261 7.2. Security Considerations during incremental deployment 263 (This section explains how that replaces a failed node takes on the 264 dead nodes' identity, or not. How are nodes retired. How are nodes 265 removed if they are compromised) 267 7.3. Security Considerations for P2P uses 269 (When layer-3 RPL security is used, P2P DODAGs are ephemeral, and may 270 have different security needs.) 272 8. Other Related Protocols 273 9. IANA Considerations 274 10. Acknowledgements 276 This document was created from a number source applicatbility 277 templates, including draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-06.txt, 278 draft-phinney-rpl-industrial-applicability-00.txt. 280 The document has benefitted from advance review by the IETF Security 281 Directorate. 283 A number of edits were contributed from Peter van der Stok. 285 11. References 287 11.1. Normative References 289 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 290 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 292 11.2. Informative References 294 [RFC6550] Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R., 295 Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP., and R. 296 Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and 297 Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012. 299 Author's Address 301 Michael C. Richardson 302 Sandelman Software Works 303 470 Dawson Avenue 304 Ottawa, ON K1Z 5V7 305 CA 307 Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca 308 URI: http://www.sandelman.ca/