Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and Lossy Networks
draft-ietf-roll-terminology-13

[Ballot comment]
The IESG is broadly supportive of the idea of merging this document with draft-ietf-lwig-terminology, but the authors of both documents suggest that there is no significant overlap between the two documents.

I am content that merging the documents would involve the authors in a lot of work that would result in two documents in a single volume rather than two documents in separate volumes.

[Ballot discuss]
The IESG plans to discuss whether it makes sense to merge this document with draft-ietf-lwig-terminology.

This would make for common terminology, which would be a good thing.

It is clearly only possible if there is consensus on the content of a merged document.

[Ballot discuss]
Simple question: Why do we have both this document, "Terms used in Ruting for Low power And Lossy Networks", and draft-ietf-lwig-terminology, "Terminology for Constrained Node Networks"?  Are LLNs and "constrained node networks" really so different, or is this just document multiplication due to poor coordination?  I'm being slightly facetious here, but it seriously does seem like these two things are closely enough related that it could be quite helpful to have both sets of information in the same place.

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for writing this good document!

I wanted to make sure that you've seen the Gen-ART review comments (even if they are editorial); I'm holding a very temporary discuss just to wait for an ack that you've seen them.

[Ballot comment]

- The definition of LBR assumes that there is only one
per LLN which is probably not an intentional limitation.
To fix: s/The LBR/An LBR/g

- RAM - NVRAM is RAM but wouldn't fit this definition.
Deleting the definition would be best here I'd say.
Chances of it being needed are smaller than of getting
it wrong.

- Schedule - a single device can have a power duty-cycle
schedule, e.g. if an LBR is not a challenged device, so
the "two or more" here is just wrong.

- Sleepy Node - that definition is broken. A node can be
in a power state that's not asleep but where the radios
are off. Even ACPI has multiple sleep states, as do
processors so this just isn't binary.

- Timeslot - "fixed time interval" is tricky - do you
mean fixed duration (and cycle) or fixed (modulo cycle)
when compared to UTC?

[Ballot comment]
I agree with Benoit/Dan that there are some definitions that are globally accepted and don't need to be in this document.

Question 8 of the shepherd write-up says that an IPR disclosure was filed against this draft.  Really?

[Ballot comment]
In addition to Stewart's comments, and Benoit-channeling-Dan's comments, which I agree with, I had a few comments you might wish to consider along with any other comments you receive during IESG evaluation.

I'm thinking this text

  HVAC: Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning.  A term applied to
  the comfort level of an internal space.

should be something like

  HVAC: Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning.  A term applied to
  mechanisms used to maintain the comfort level of an internal space.
  ^ inserted text            ^

I understand what this text is saying

  P2P: Point To Point.  This refers to traffic exchanged between two
  nodes (regardless of the number of hops between the two nodes).

but wonder if it should be something like

  P2P: Point To Point.  This refers to traffic exchanged between two
  nodes (regardless of the number of network hops between the two
                                      ^ inserted "network"

  nodes).

In this text,

  Sleepy Node: A sleepy node is a node that may sometimes go into a
  sleep mode (i.e.  go into a low power state to conserve power) and
  temporarily suspend protocol communication.  When no in a sleep mode,
                                                    ^not, I think

  the sleepy node is in a fully powered on state where it has the
  capability to perform communication.

[Ballot comment]
In addition to Stewart's comments, and Benoit-channeling-Dan's comments, which I agree with, I had a few comments you might wish to consider along with any other comments you receive during IESG evaluation.

I'm thinking this text

  HVAC: Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning.  A term applied to
  the comfort level of an internal space.

should be something like

  HVAC: Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning.  A term applied to
  mechanisms used to maintain the comfort level of an internal space.
  ^ inserted text            ^

I understand what this text is saying

  P2P: Point To Point.  This refers to traffic exchanged between two
  nodes (regardless of the number of hops between the two nodes).

but wonder if it should be something like

  P2P: Point To Point.  This refers to traffic exchanged between two
  nodes (regardless of the number of network hops between the two nodes).
                                      ^ inserted "network"

In this text,

  Sleepy Node: A sleepy node is a node that may sometimes go into a
  sleep mode (i.e.  go into a low power state to conserve power) and
  temporarily suspend protocol communication.  When no in a sleep mode,
                                                    ^not, I think

  the sleepy node is in a fully powered on state where it has the
  capability to perform communication.

[Ballot comment]

Ruting - typo

==

Channel: Radio frequency sub-band

I think that this is a most unfortunate truncation in a document used about routing, since we have other channels such as OAM channels. Might I propose that you use "Radio Channel" a term which would normally be acceptable to radio engineers and which would not confuse network engineers.

==
Channel Hopping: A procedure by which field devices synchronously change channels during operation.

This may need some clarification I imagine you refer to RX TX pairs sync rather than TX TX sync in any case you should probably expand the meaning.

==
  Closed Loop Control: A procedure whereby a device controller controls
  an actuator based on input information sensed by one or more field
  devices.

To be closed loop, surely you need to emphasis that the actuator causes an effect that has a (normally negative feedback) impact on  the sensor to result in a converged behaviour.

==
  Open Loop Control: A process whereby a plant operator manually
  manipulates an actuator over the network where the decision is
  influenced by information sensed by field devices.

Surely OLC has nothing to do with manual intervention and everything to do with the absence of feedback.

==
  Schedule: An agreed execution, wake-up, transmission, reception,
  etc., time-table between two or more field devices.

Schedule does not normally imply synchronisation, are you sure this term is not going to lead to confusion?
==

[Ballot comment]
I'm pretty sure that JP doesn't live in Boxborough any longer ;-)

Below is the OPS-DIR review from Dan Romascanu. Take it or leave it.

    It is a well written and seems to be a useful document. My only editorial question is whether it really is necessary to include here definitions of very common terms like MAC or LAN, which can be found in other standards like the IEEE standards. Such terms do not have a different meaning in roll.

    The only definition that somehow differs from the common used definition is definition of Data sink as 'A device that collects data from nodes specific in an LLN.'. Is this something specific to roll? The text implies some active role for 'data sinks' ('device that collects data') while in other environments a data sink is just a device that receives data. If this is a mistake better fix this.

[Ballot comment]
Below is the OPS-DIR review from Dan Romascanu. Take it or leave it.

    It is a well written and seems to be a useful document. My only editorial question is whether it really is necessary to include here definitions of very common terms like MAC or LAN, which can be found in other standards like the IEEE standards. Such terms do not have a different meaning in roll.

    The only definition that somehow differs from the common used definition is definition of Data sink as 'A device that collects data from nodes specific in an LLN.'. Is this something specific to roll? The text implies some active role for 'data sinks' ('device that collects data') while in other environments a data sink is just a device that receives data. If this is a mistake better fix this.


I'm pretty sure that JP doesn't live in Boxborough any longer ;-)

[Ballot comment]
I was about to raise a DISCUSS, just for the reason that nobody has really read the document ;)

The title says "Terms used in Ruting for Low power And Lossy Networks", but it should read "Terms used in Routing for Low power And Lossy Networks.

So please replace  'Ruting' by 'Routing' in the title.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-roll-terminology-13, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. IANA requests that the IANA Considerations section of the document remain in place upon publication.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Terms used in Ruting for Low power And Lossy Networks) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Routing Over Low power and Lossy
networks WG (roll) to consider the following document:
- 'Terms used in Ruting for Low power And Lossy Networks'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-10-17. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

  The documents provides a glossary of terminology used in routing
  requirements and solutions for networks referred to as Low power and
  Lossy Networks (LLN).  An LLN is typically composed of many embedded
  devices with limited power, memory, and processing resources
  interconnected by a variety of links.  There is a wide scope of
  application areas for LLNs, including industrial monitoring, building
  automation (e.g.  Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning, lighting,
  access control, fire), connected home, healthcare, environmental
  monitoring, urban sensor networks, energy management, assets
  tracking, refrigeration.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-terminology/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-terminology/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-roll-terminology-12, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Terminology in Low power And Lossy Networks) to Informational RFC

The IESG has received a request from the Routing Over Low power and Lossy
networks WG (roll) to consider the following document:
- 'Terminology in Low power And Lossy Networks'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-03-30. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract
  The documents defines a terminology for discussing routing
  requirements and solutions for networks referred to as Low power and
  Lossy Networks (LLN).  An LLN is typically composed of many embedded
  devices with limited power, memory, and processing resources
  interconnected by a variety of links.  There is a wide scope of
  application areas for LLNs, including industrial monitoring, building
  automation (e.g.  Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning, lighting,
  access control, fire), connected home, healthcare, environmental
  monitoring, urban sensor networks, energy management, assets
  tracking, refrigeration.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-terminology/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-terminology/ballot/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

AD Review

Hi,

I have done my usual AD review of your document prior to advancing it
towards publication. The purpose of my review is to catch issues or nits
that would be found during IETF last call or IESG review and which might
delay the processing or hide other issues. The intent is to remove the
issues efficiently at this stage.

As usual, all of my points are open for discussion.

I have found a number of relatively minor nits and small questions.
Given the volume I think it would be worth producing a new revision.

When I see the new version I will start the IETF last call process. During
IETF last call, I will be bringing this I-D explicitly to the attention of
several key working groups in other IETF areas so that they can
consider alignment of terminology.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

s/A LLN/An LLN/ throughout

---

Remove the 2119 boilerplate and the reference to [RFC2119]

---

Decide on capitalisation of "Low power and Lossy Networks" and apply it
uniformly throughout the document.

---

Section 2 Actuator
s/modulates/modulate/

---

Section 2 Commissioning Tool
s/expressed purpose/express purpose/

---

Section 2 Downstream / Upstream

Are you convinced that these terms apply only to data entering / leaving
the LLN at the LBR? They do not apply to traffic within the LLN?

Although I see you use "inwards" in the definition of "MP2P".

---
                       
Section 2 Field Device
s/A field deviced/A field device/

---

Section 2 Field Device

  Low power and Lossy Network Border Router (including LBR)

Is this right? Isn't a Low power and Lossy Network Border Router exactly
an LBR?

---

Section 2 Field Devices

  compared to computers and routers used in the Internet.

I know what you mean, but I think an LLN is part of the Internet.
So maybe...

  compared to computers and routers used outside of LLNs.

...or...

  compared to computers and routers used in the rest of the Internet.

---

Section 2 Non-sleepy Node

  Non-sleepy Node: A non-sleepy node is a node that always remains in a
  fully powered on state (i.e. always awake) where it has the
  capability to perform RPL protocol communication.

I think that the specific reference to RPL is wrong in the context of
this document. You may mean "perform routing protocol communication" or
you may mean "perform communication".

---

Section 2 P2MP

You use the term DAG without explaining it. You either need to add it
to the terms (maybe DAG Root is more useful) or change what is written
for P2MP.

---

Section 2 RPL Domain

Fine, but no explanation of RPL. Since RPL is also used elsewhere in the
document, I suggest you add an entry for RPL with a citation.

---

Section 2 RPL Domain

Since someone is bound to ask what a RPL router is...
Best add an entry.

---

Section 2 Sensor

s/a analog/an analog/

---

Section 2 Sleepy Node

  Sleepy Node: A sleepy node is a node that may sometimes go into a
  sleep mode (i.e. go into a low power state to conserve power) and
  temporarily suspend protocol communication.  A sleepy node may also
  sometimes remain in a fully powered on state where it has the
  capability to perform RPL protocol communication.

This doesn't quite make sense. You are using "Sometimes remain", I think
to contrast with "sometimes go into a sleep mode".

I think it is enough to say "When no in a sleep mode, the sleepy node is
in a fully powered on state...."

Additionally, is the only issue "to perform RPL protocol communication"?
As for non-sleepy node you may mean "perform routing protocol
communication" or you may mean "perform communication".

Q> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Q> Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
Q> this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
Q> title page header?

Informational.

Q> (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Q> Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
Q> examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
Q> documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Q> Technical Summary:

Low power And Lossy Networks (LLN) are used in a wide scope of
application areas, including industrial monitoring, building
automation (e.g. Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning, lighting,
access control, fire), connected home, healthcare, environmental
monitoring, urban sensor networks, energy management, assets
tracking, refrigeration. The documents defines a set of common terminology.

Q> Working Group Summary:

No concerns, the document had good support.

Q> Document Quality:

There was good support in the working group towards getting the definitions
precise enough to be useful, but not overly specific.

Q> Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Document Shepherd: Michael Richardson
Responsible AD: Adrian Farrel

Q> (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
Q> the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
Q> for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
Q> the IESG.

A WGLC for the document was issued and a number of definitions were adjusted.
This document should have been published at the same time as RFC6550 but fell
by the wayside.

Q> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
Q> breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

None.

Q> (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
Q> broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
Q> DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
Q> took place.

None.

Q> (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
Q> Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director
Q> and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is
Q> uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns
Q> whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has
Q> discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to
Q> advance the document, detail those concerns here.

None.

Q> (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
Q> disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
Q> 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes.

Q> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
Q> so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
Q> disclosures.

Yes.

Q> (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
Q> represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
Q> being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The document was forgotten and revived, and so recent discussion does not
reflect historical involvement. When questions were asked, the WG responded
favourable, and was able to quickly come to consensus on the changes.

Q> (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
Q> discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
Q> email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
Q> separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

no.

Q> (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
Q> document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
Q> Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
Q> check needs to be thorough.

none.

Q> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
Q> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

none

Q> (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
Q> either normative or informative?

yes.

Q> (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready
Q> for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such
Q> normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

none

Q> (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
Q> 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area
Q> Director in the Last Call procedure.

none

Q> (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
Q> existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
Q> in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are
Q> not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to
Q> the part of the document where the relationship of this document to
Q> the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the
Q> document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

no.

Q> (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
Q> considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with
Q> the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that
Q> the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in
Q> IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been
Q> clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include
Q> a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry,
Q> that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and
Q> a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC
Q> 5226).

No IANA considerations.

Q> (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
Q> future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would
Q> find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

Q> (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Q> Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
Q> language, such as
Q> XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

none.