idnits 2.17.1 draft-richardson-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 (January 22, 2013) is 4105 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 241, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 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 January 22, 2013 5 Expires: July 26, 2013 7 ROLL Applicability Statement Template 8 draft-richardson-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. 15 Status of this Memo 17 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 18 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 22 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 23 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 26 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 27 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 28 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 30 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 26, 2013. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 35 document authors. All rights reserved. 37 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 38 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 39 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 40 publication of this document. Please review these documents 41 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 42 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 43 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 44 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 45 described in the Simplified BSD License. 47 Table of Contents 49 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 50 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 51 1.2. Required Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 52 1.3. Out of scope requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 53 2. Deployment Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 54 2.1. Network Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 55 2.2. Network Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 2.2.1. Traffic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 2.2.2. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 2.2.3. Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm . . . . . . . 5 59 2.2.4. Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) communication 60 paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 2.2.5. Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm . . . . . . 5 62 2.2.6. Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm . . . 5 63 2.2.7. Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast . . . . 5 64 2.2.8. RPL applicability per communication paradigm . . . . . 5 65 2.3. Layer 2 applicability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 3. Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 4. RPL Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 4.1. RPL Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 4.1.1. RPL Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 4.1.2. Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 71 4.1.3. DAO Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 72 4.1.4. Path Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 73 4.1.5. Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 74 4.1.6. DODAG Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 75 4.1.7. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 76 4.1.8. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 77 4.1.9. P2P communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 78 4.2. Layer-two features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 79 4.2.1. Need layer-2 expert here. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 80 4.2.2. Security functions provided by layer-2. . . . . . . . 7 81 4.2.3. 6LowPAN options assumed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 82 4.2.4. MLE and other things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 83 4.3. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . . 7 84 4.3.1. Trickle Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 85 4.3.2. Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 86 5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 87 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 88 6.1. Security Considerations during initial deployment . . . . 9 89 6.2. Security Considerations during incremental deployment . . 9 90 7. Other Related Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 91 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 92 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 93 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 94 10.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 95 10.2. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 96 11. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 97 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 99 1. Introduction 101 Hello. 103 1.1. Requirements Language 105 (RFC2119 reference) 107 1.2. Required Reading 109 References/Overview of requirements documents, both IETF and industry 110 group. (two pages maximum. This text should be (very) technical, 111 should be aimed at IETF *participants*, not industry group 112 participants, and should explain this industries' specific issues) 114 1.3. Out of scope requirements 116 This should list other documents (if any) which deal with situations 117 where things are not in scope for this document. 119 (For instance, the AMI document tries to cover both line-powered 120 urban metering networks, and energy-constrained metering networks, 121 and also tries to deal with rural requirements. This should be three 122 or four documents, so this section should list the limits of what 123 this document covers) 125 2. Deployment Scenario 127 2.1. Network Topologies 129 describe a single scenario, with possibly multiple topologies that a 130 single utility would employ. 132 2.2. Network Topologies 134 2.2.1. Traffic Characteristics 136 Explain what kind of traffic is being transmitted, where it is 137 initiated, and what kinds of protocols (CoAP, multicast, HTTPS, etc.) 138 are being used. Explain what assumptions are being made about 139 authentication and authorization in those protocols. 141 2.2.2. General 143 2.2.3. Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm 145 2.2.4. Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) communication paradigm 147 2.2.5. Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm 149 2.2.6. Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm 151 2.2.7. Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast 153 2.2.8. RPL applicability per communication paradigm 155 2.3. Layer 2 applicability. 157 Explain what layer-2 technologies this statement applies to, and if 158 there are options, they should be listed generally here, and 159 specifically in section 4.2. 161 3. Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements 163 This should explain in general terms how RPL is going to be used in 164 this network topology. If trees that are multiple layers deep are 165 expected, then this should be described so that the fan out is 166 understood. Some sample topologies (from simulations) should be 167 explained, perhaps with images references from other publications. 169 This section should tell an *implementer* in a lab, having a 170 simulation tool or a building/city/etc. to use as a testbed, how to 171 construct an LLN of sufficient complexity (but not too much) to 172 validate an implementation. 174 4. RPL Profile 176 This section should list the various features of RPL plus other 177 layers of the LLN, and how they will be used. 179 4.1. RPL Features 181 4.1.1. RPL Instances 183 4.1.2. Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode 185 4.1.3. DAO Policy 187 4.1.4. Path Metrics 189 4.1.5. Objective Function 191 4.1.6. DODAG Repair 193 4.1.7. Multicast 195 4.1.8. Security 197 4.1.9. P2P communications 199 4.2. Layer-two features 201 4.2.1. Need layer-2 expert here. 203 4.2.2. Security functions provided by layer-2. 205 4.2.3. 6LowPAN options assumed. 207 4.2.4. MLE and other things 209 4.3. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges 211 4.3.1. Trickle Parameters 213 4.3.2. Other Parameters 214 5. Manageability Considerations 215 6. Security Considerations 217 6.1. Security Considerations during initial deployment 219 (This section explains how nodes get their initial trust anchors, 220 initial network keys. It explains if this happens at the factory, in 221 a deployment truck, if it is done in the field, perhaps like http:// 222 www.lix.polytechnique.fr/hipercom/SmartObjectSecurity/papers/ 223 CullenJennings.pdf) 225 6.2. Security Considerations during incremental deployment 227 (This section explains how that replaces a failed node takes on the 228 dead nodes' identity, or not. How are nodes retired. How are nodes 229 removed if they are compromised) 231 7. Other Related Protocols 232 8. IANA Considerations 233 9. Acknowledgements 234 10. References 236 10.1. Informative References 238 10.2. Normative References 239 11. Normative references 241 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 242 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 244 Author's Address 246 Michael C. Richardson 247 Sandelman Software Works 248 470 Dawson Avenue 249 Ottawa, ON K1Z 5V7 250 CA 252 Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca 253 URI: http://www.sandelman.ca/