So people don't need to look it up, 6man is meeting Wednesday morning
Session 1.
geoff
On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 11:31 -0500, Brian Haberman wrote:
> Pascal,
> There will be a presentation in 6MAN on a possible update to 4294
> to address other changes in the standards. I would encourage people
> interested in including sensor-like devices in such an update to bring
> the topic up either in the 6MAN meeting in Vancouver, on the 6MAN
> mailing list, or to the author of 4294 (John Loughney).
>
> Regards,
> Brian
>
>
> Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> > Hi Kris:
> >
> > For your question on ESP, AFAIK, RFC 4294 only mandates NULL
> > encryption and authentication for interoperability reasons.
> >
> > On the general question of RFC 4294 itself: I'm not sure the work was
> > ever done. I hope someone from the list can help?
> >
> > If the answer is unclear, and considering that we are re-chartering
> > the group, maybe we could have a work item to specify the
> > instantiation of RFC 4294 for LoWPAN nodes?
> >
> > Pascal ________________________________________ From: Kris Pister
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007
> > 5:42 PM To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) Cc: 6lowpan Subject: Re: [RSN]
> > Here is the new RL2N Proposed Working Charter
> >
> > Is there an email thread somewhere that discusses the impact on
> > 6LoWPAN of the security requirements of 4294 and 4303? My first quick
> > readthrough makes me very uncomfortable that some of the mandates are
> > going to be ugly from a header standpoint.
> >
> > ksjp
> >
> > Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: 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
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ RSN mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list
> > [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
