Hi JP: Thanks a bunch for this charter. I'll try not to rephrase what was already discussed with Christian, Anders, Philip and Misha.
There's an additional item I'd wish to see either in ROLL or 6LoWPAN and I do not know exactly where it belongs, maybe both. The question is whether we need to and can document how RFC 4294 applies for sensors, and M2M devices in general, whether they act as hosts or as routers. I've seen IPv6 presented as a Pandora box that drags just too much stuff to be incorporated in a sensory device. For instance, at the moment, SP100.11a endorses 6LoWPAN formats but it's not so clear at all that IPv6 itself is mandated. A clear spec with well-documented implementation could be a formidable tool to despond to Fear, Uncertainty and Defiance. So maybe we do not need DHCP (a MAY in RFC 4294) and maybe can do without multicast at all if ND is supported some other way (such as suggested in: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thubert-lowpan-backbone-router-00.txt). Maybe NULL encryption and authentication is enough etc, etc... Being able to define one minimum set and maybe a few other profiles for the use cases that we selected could help tremendously. Otherwise I find the charter real well written and easy to digest. From the MANEMO experience, I expect that some arguments about the relative applicability of existing MANET protocols will be difficult to prove without some good simulation work running agreed-upon scenarios. Finally, I'm a bit confused that it seems that both IPv4 and IPv6 seem supported. Ipv4 comes with a lot of overhead like DHCP. I suggest that when trouble comes and things can not be done in a common fashion for both IP protocols, hen we prioritize IPv6. Unfortunately, I can not make it to Vancouver, but I do feel that the work is really needed so please count my vote in for the adoption of the WG. Cheers, Pascal >-----Original Message----- >From: Jean Philippe Vasseur (jvasseur) >Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:19 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [RSN] Here is the new RL2N Proposed Working Charter > >Dear all, > >As promised, here is the new proposed Working Group, which reflects the >number of comments/suggestions that we received, the pre-WG consensus, ... > >Thanks to Dave Ward (RTD AD) for his input. > >Proposed RL2N WG Charter > >Description of Working Group > >L2Ns (Low power and Lossy networks) are typically composed of many embedded >devices with limited power, memory, and processing resources interconnected >by a variety of wireless links, such as IEEE 802.15.4, Bluetooth, Low Power >WiFi. > >L2Ns are transitioning to an end-to-end IP-based solution to avoid the >problems of non-interoperable networks interconnected by protocol >translation gateways and proxies. In addition, L2Ns have specific routing >requirements that are not currently met by existing routing protocols, such >as OSPF, IS-IS, AODV, and OLSR. L2N path selection must be designed to take >into consideration the specific power, capabilities, attributes and >functional characteristics of the links and nodes in the network. > > >There is a wide scope of application areas for L2Ns, including industrial >monitoring, building automation (HVAC, lighting/access control), connected >home, healthcare, environmental monitoring, agricultural, smart cities, >logistics, assets tracking, and refrigeration. The L2N WG will focus on >routing solutions for a subset of these deployment scenarios, namely >industrial, connected home/building and urban applications. The Working >Group will determine the routing requirements for these scenarios. > > >The Working Group will provide a routing framework for these application >scenarios that provides high reliability in the presence of time varying >loss characteristics and connectivity while permitting low-power operation >with very modest memory and CPU pressure. > > >The Working Group will pay a particular attention to routing security and >manageability (e.g self managing/configuration) issues, which are >particularly critical for L2Ns. > >Work Items: > >- Produce use cases documents for Industrial, Connected Home, Building and >urban application networks. Each document will describe the use case and the >associated routing protocol requirements. The documents will progress in >collaboration with the 6lowpan Working Group (INT area). > > >- Survey the applicability of existing protocols to L2Ns. The aim of this >document will be to analyze the scaling and characteristics of existing >protocols and identify whether or not they meet the routing requirements of >the L2Ns applications identified above. Existing IGPs, MANET, NEMO, DTN >routing protocols will be part of evaluation. > >- Specification of routing metrics used in path calculation. This includes >static and dynamic link/nodes attributes required for routing in L2Ns. > >- Provide an architectural framework for routing and path selection at Layer >3 (Routing for L2N Architecture) >* Decide whether the L2Ns routing protocol require a distributed, >centralized path computation models or both. >* Decide whether the L2N routing protocol requires a hierarchical routing >approach. > >- Produce a security framework for routing in L2Ns. > >Goals And Milestones: > > >April 2008 Submit Use case/Routing requirements for Industrial, Connected >Home, Building and Urban networks applications to the IESG to be considered >as an Informational RFC. > >August 2008: Submit Routing metrics for L2Ns document to the IESG to be >considered as an Informational RFC. > >September 2008: Submit first draft of the Routing for L2Ns Architecture >document (summary of requirements, path computation model, >flat/hierarchy,Š). > >November 2008: Submit Protocol Survey to the IESG to be considered as an >Informational RFC. > >January 2009 Submit Security Framework for L2Ns to the IESG to be considered >as an Informational RFC > >February 2009: Submit the Routing for L2Ns Architecture document (summary >of requirements, metrics and attributes, path selection model) to the IESG >as an Informational RFC. > >March 2009: Recharter. > > >Please comment/suggest/... > >See you in Vancouver. > >JP and David. > > >_______________________________________________ >RSN mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
