Building Automation Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy Networks
RFC 5867
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2015-10-14
|
09 | (System) | Notify list changed from roll-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2012-08-22
|
09 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Robert Sparks |
|
2012-08-22
|
09 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Jari Arkko |
|
2012-08-22
|
09 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk |
|
2012-08-22
|
09 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Dan Romascanu |
|
2012-08-22
|
09 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-06-11
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-06-11
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'RFC 5867' added by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-06-11
|
09 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2010-03-18
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-03-16
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
|
2010-03-16
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2010-03-16
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2010-03-16
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2010-03-16
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2010-02-16
|
09 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Tim Polk |
|
2010-02-07
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Jari Arkko |
|
2010-01-28
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-09.txt |
|
2010-01-15
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] The empty lines in Figure 1 make the viewing the picture hard. > Fire systems are much more uniformly installed with smoke detectors … [Ballot comment] The empty lines in Figure 1 make the viewing the picture hard. > Fire systems are much more uniformly installed with smoke detectors > installed about every 50 feet. The rules on this are variable, but I have actually not come across a distance metric. Typically, there is a requirement to have at least one detector per floor per firewalled area, or even one per room. > These cameras are atypical > endpoints requiring upwards to 1 megabit/second (Mbit/s) data rates > per camera as contrasted by the few Kbits/s needed by most other FMS > sensing equipment. The deployment models differ again, though. Some devices operate in motion detection mode, others stream continuously, and yet others operate as web servers and are used on a per need basis. > A ten minute power outage may require many hours to regain building > control. Traffic flow may increase ten-fold until the building > control stabilizes. I wish it were made clearer that this is an undesirable state of affairs. > Typically, sensor battery life (2000mah) needs to extend for at least > 5 years when the device is transmitting its data (200 octets) once > per minute over a low power transceiver (25ma) and expecting a > application acknowledgement. This requires a highly efficient > routing protocol that minimizes hops and hence latency in end-to-end > communication. The routing protocol MUST take into account node > properties such as 'Low-powered node' which produce efficient low > latency routes that minimize radio 'on' time for these devices. There are of course wireless sensors in a building network. However, I have serious trouble believing that the router nodes need to be in this mode. Does this requirement mean that the routers have to save power for themselves (which would be a major research project) or merely that small or at least predictable latency would save energy for hosts? Please clarify. |
|
2010-01-15
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] This was an overall very good document, and I'm prepared to ballot Yes on it. However, before doing so I wanted to raise … [Ballot discuss] This was an overall very good document, and I'm prepared to ballot Yes on it. However, before doing so I wanted to raise a few issues. My main concern is that the document is in places imprecise about the layering architecture, and I believe there are certain functions which work best at higher layers, not in routing. Update on January 15th: this is the remaining issue: > 5.3.1.2. Device Mobility across LLNs > > A mobile device may move across LLNs, such as a wheel chair being > moved to a different floor. > > A mobile device that moves outside its original LLN SHOULD > reestablish end-to-end communication to a fixed device also in the > new LLN within 10 seconds after the mobile device ceases movement. > The network convergence time should be less than 20 seconds once the > mobile device stops moving. This is a reasonable requirement, but the document lacks some discussion that I think would be relevant for guiding further work in this area. It seems that the above requirements have been stated with a routing fabric solution in mind. That is only one possible solution among many: mobility at L2, mobility through routing, e2e mobility at the IP layer, transport layer, applications. I believe it is important that the documents clearly specify either what the expectation is (if you have some arguments why one type of a solution is absolutely required), or point out that ways to satisfy this requirement exist at multiple layers. |
|
2010-01-03
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Dan Romascanu |
|
2009-12-02
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2009-12-02
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-08.txt |
|
2009-09-24
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
|
2009-09-24
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] The empty lines in Figure 1 make the viewing the picture hard. > Fire systems are much more uniformly installed with smoke detectors … [Ballot comment] The empty lines in Figure 1 make the viewing the picture hard. > Fire systems are much more uniformly installed with smoke detectors > installed about every 50 feet. The rules on this are variable, but I have actually not come across a distance metric. Typically, there is a requirement to have at least one detector per floor per firewalled area, or even one per room. > These cameras are atypical > endpoints requiring upwards to 1 megabit/second (Mbit/s) data rates > per camera as contrasted by the few Kbits/s needed by most other FMS > sensing equipment. The deployment models differ again, though. Some devices operate in motion detection mode, others stream continuously, and yet others operate as web servers and are used on a per need basis. > A ten minute power outage may require many hours to regain building > control. Traffic flow may increase ten-fold until the building > control stabilizes. I wish it were made clearer that this is an undesirable state of affairs. > Typically, sensor battery life (2000mah) needs to extend for at least > 5 years when the device is transmitting its data (200 octets) once > per minute over a low power transceiver (25ma) and expecting a > application acknowledgement. This requires a highly efficient > routing protocol that minimizes hops and hence latency in end-to-end > communication. The routing protocol MUST take into account node > properties such as 'Low-powered node' which produce efficient low > latency routes that minimize radio 'on' time for these devices. There are of course wireless sensors in a building network. However, I have serious trouble believing that the router nodes need to be in this mode. Does this requirement mean that the routers have to save power for themselves (which would be a major research project) or merely that small or at least predictable latency would save energy for hosts? Please clarify. |
|
2009-09-24
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] This was an overall very good document, and I'm prepared to ballot Yes on it. However, before doing so I wanted to raise … [Ballot discuss] This was an overall very good document, and I'm prepared to ballot Yes on it. However, before doing so I wanted to raise a few issues. My main concern is that the document is in places imprecise about the layering architecture, and I believe there are certain functions which work best at higher layers, not in routing. I think we generally agree on these things, so it should be just a matter of clarifying the requirements. There were also a few other imprecise statements, which again should be easy to clarify. Here are the details: > This demands an > adaptive routing protocol to allow for route optimization as the > network stabilizes. Wouldn't a bigger problem be loops or simply dropping traffic when it no longer matches what the router thinks it should be receiving? And isn't there rather a role for better higher-layer application behaviour, such as not blasting everything from the buffer during the first millisecond that the network appears to be up again? > 5.1.2. Local Testing > During installation, the room sensors, actuators and controllers > SHOULD be able to route packets amongst themselves without requiring > any additional routing infrastructure or routing configuration. This requirement is quite imprecise. For instance, is operation on a local area network sufficient for this? Using link local addresses? Or do you require some non-router devices to actually take on the task of routing between multiple subnets? But this seems contradictory to them not being the routers. If the network employs wireless, how do the sensors know what parts of the wireless should be configured as one or the other subnet? Or do you mean full ad hoc routing behaviour here? > 5.3.1.2. Device Mobility across LLNs > > A mobile device may move across LLNs, such as a wheel chair being > moved to a different floor. > > A mobile device that moves outside its original LLN SHOULD > reestablish end-to-end communication to a fixed device also in the > new LLN within 10 seconds after the mobile device ceases movement. > The network convergence time should be less than 20 seconds once the > mobile device stops moving. This is a reasonable requirement, but the document lacks some discussion that I think would be relevant for guiding further work in this area. It seems that the above requirements have been stated with a routing fabric solution in mind. That is only one possible solution among many: mobility at L2, mobility through routing, e2e mobility at the IP layer, transport layer, applications. I believe it is important that the documents clearly specify either what the expectation is (if you have some arguments why one type of a solution is absolutely required), or point out that ways to satisfy this requirement exist at multiple layers. > Proxies with unconstrained power budgets often times are used to > cache the inbound data for a sleeping device until the device > awakens. In such cases, the routing protocol MUST discover the > capability of a node to act as a proxy during route calculation; then > deliver the packet to the assigned proxy for later delivery to the > sleeping device upon its next awakened cycle. I believe we are mixing layers of communication here. The routing fabric should not be aware of the fact that something is acting as a proxy. Most proxy deployments that I have seen are at the application layer, and may even involve protocol translation to get to the end point perhaps even using a non-IP protocol. > Communication routes MUST adapt toward the chosen metric(s) (e.g. > signal quality) optimality in time. What does "adapt toward chosen metric optimality" mean? Maybe I'm just not understanding the expression you used... |
|
2009-09-24
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
|
2009-09-24
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] The empty lines in Figure 1 make the viewing the picture hard. > Fire systems are much more uniformly installed with smoke detectors … [Ballot comment] The empty lines in Figure 1 make the viewing the picture hard. > Fire systems are much more uniformly installed with smoke detectors > installed about every 50 feet. The rules on this are variable, but I have actually not come across a distance metric. Typically, there is a requirement to have at least one detector per floor per firewalled area, or even one per room. > These cameras are atypical > endpoints requiring upwards to 1 megabit/second (Mbit/s) data rates > per camera as contrasted by the few Kbits/s needed by most other FMS > sensing equipment. The deployment models differ again, though. Some devices operate in motion detection mode, others stream continuously, and yet others operate as web servers and are used on a per need basis. > A ten minute power outage may require many hours to regain building > control. Traffic flow may increase ten-fold until the building > control stabilizes. I wish it were made clearer that this is an undesirable state of affairs. > This demands an > adaptive routing protocol to allow for route optimization as the > network stabilizes. Wouldn't a bigger problem be loops or simply dropping traffic when it no longer matches what the router thinks it should be receiving? And isn't there rather a role for better higher-layer application behaviour, such as not blasting everything from the buffer during the first millisecond that the network appears to be up again? > 5.1.2. Local Testing > During installation, the room sensors, actuators and controllers > SHOULD be able to route packets amongst themselves without requiring > any additional routing infrastructure or routing configuration. This requirement is quite imprecise. For instance, is operation on a local area network sufficient for this? Using link local addresses? Or do you require some non-router devices to actually take on the task of routing between multiple subnets? But this seems contradictory to them not being the routers. If the network employs wireless, how do the sensors know what parts of the wireless should be configured as one or the other subnet? Or do you mean full ad hoc routing behaviour here? > 5.3.1.2. Device Mobility across LLNs > > A mobile device may move across LLNs, such as a wheel chair being > moved to a different floor. > > A mobile device that moves outside its original LLN SHOULD > reestablish end-to-end communication to a fixed device also in the > new LLN within 10 seconds after the mobile device ceases movement. > The network convergence time should be less than 20 seconds once the > mobile device stops moving. This is a reasonable requirement, but the document lacks some discussion that I think would be relevant for guiding further work in this area. It seems that the above requirements have been stated with a routing fabric solution in mind. That is only one possible solution among many: mobility at L2, mobility through routing, e2e mobility at the IP layer, transport layer, applications. I believe it is important that the documents clearly specify either what the expectation is (if you have some arguments why one type of a solution is absolutely required), or point out that ways to satisfy this requirement exist at multiple layers. > Typically, sensor battery life (2000mah) needs to extend for at least > 5 years when the device is transmitting its data (200 octets) once > per minute over a low power transceiver (25ma) and expecting a > application acknowledgement. This requires a highly efficient > routing protocol that minimizes hops and hence latency in end-to-end > communication. The routing protocol MUST take into account node > properties such as 'Low-powered node' which produce efficient low > latency routes that minimize radio 'on' time for these devices. There are of course wireless sensors in a building network. However, I have serious trouble believing that the router nodes need to be in this mode. Does this requirement mean that the routers have to save power for themselves (which would be a major research project) or merely that small or at least predictable latency would save energy for hosts? Please clarify. > Proxies with unconstrained power budgets often times are used to > cache the inbound data for a sleeping device until the device > awakens. In such cases, the routing protocol MUST discover the > capability of a node to act as a proxy during route calculation; then > deliver the packet to the assigned proxy for later delivery to the > sleeping device upon its next awakened cycle. I believe we are mixing layers of communication here. The routing fabric should not be aware of the fact that something is acting as a proxy. Most proxy deployments that I have seen are at the application layer, and may even involve protocol translation to get to the end point perhaps even using a non-IP protocol. > Communication routes MUST adapt toward the chosen metric(s) (e.g. > signal quality) optimality in time. What does "adapt toward chosen metric optimality" mean? Maybe I'm just not understanding the expression you used... |
|
2009-09-24
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot discuss] I find the information and requirements about manageability insuficient. At a minimum I would expect information about the operational model of the roll … [Ballot discuss] I find the information and requirements about manageability insuficient. At a minimum I would expect information about the operational model of the roll networks (how they are supposed to be operated and deployed) and also about how devices are supposed to be accessed in order to manage resources, activate diagnostics and and make routing, status, and alarms information accessible to network operators. |
|
2009-09-24
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
|
2009-09-24
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Russ Housley |
|
2009-09-24
|
09 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
|
2009-09-24
|
09 | Tim Polk | [Ballot discuss] This is a good document, a clear read (thanks!), and I support its publication. However, I do think one issue needs to be … [Ballot discuss] This is a good document, a clear read (thanks!), and I support its publication. However, I do think one issue needs to be revisited before publication. I believe the bar for authentication is set too low. Physically wired systems depend to some degree on the physical security of the building - to add a rogue element, you not only need to access the building, you probably need to rip out some drywall! Another contributing factor is my own paranoia - even in owner occupied facilities, I see a higher threat level than indicated in the spreadsheet (emailed in response to Derek Atkins' secdir review). Not everyone gets along with their neighbors, and being able to shut down HVAC or lighting is a very effective form of harassment. I believe that authentication should be mandatory to implement, and should be a MUST for joining the network unless explicitly configured otherwise. That is, authentication should be the default. I also believe the device needs to be capable of re-authenticating when the network fragments or key devices fail. (E.g., if the device is only authenticated to its neighbors but they all have failed, the device might need to authenticate again to its new neighbors. Perhaps that is considered a join?) The current text in 5.8.1. implies authenticate once, be done with it... perhaps I am misreading this? |
|
2009-09-24
|
09 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
|
2009-09-24
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] The empty lines in Figure 1 make the viewing the picture hard. > Fire systems are much more uniformly installed with smoke detectors … [Ballot comment] The empty lines in Figure 1 make the viewing the picture hard. > Fire systems are much more uniformly installed with smoke detectors > installed about every 50 feet. The rules on this are variable, but I have actually not come across a distance metric. Typically, there is a requirement to have at least one detector per floor per firewalled area, or even one per room. > These cameras are atypical > endpoints requiring upwards to 1 megabit/second (Mbit/s) data rates > per camera as contrasted by the few Kbits/s needed by most other FMS > sensing equipment. The deployment models differ again, though. Some devices operate in motion detection mode, others stream continuously, and yet others operate as web servers and are used on a per need basis. > A ten minute power outage may require many hours to regain building > control. Traffic flow may increase ten-fold until the building > control stabilizes. I wish it were made clearer that this is an undesirable state of affairs. > This demands an > adaptive routing protocol to allow for route optimization as the > network stabilizes. Wouldn't a bigger problem be loops or simply dropping traffic when it no longer matches what the router thinks it should be receiving? And isn't there rather a role for better higher-layer application behaviour, such as not blasting everything from the buffer during the first millisecond that the network appears to be up again? > 5.1.2. Local Testing > During installation, the room sensors, actuators and controllers > SHOULD be able to route packets amongst themselves without requiring > any additional routing infrastructure or routing configuration. This requirement is quite imprecise. For instance, is operation on a local area network sufficient for this? Using link local addresses? Or do you require some non-router devices to actually take on the task of routing between multiple subnets? But this seems contradictory to them not being the routers. If the network employs wireless, how do the sensors know what parts of the wireless should be configured as one or the other subnet? Or do you mean full ad hoc routing behaviour here? |
|
2009-09-24
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] The empty lines in Figure 1 make the viewing the picture hard. > Fire systems are much more uniformly installed with smoke detectors … [Ballot comment] The empty lines in Figure 1 make the viewing the picture hard. > Fire systems are much more uniformly installed with smoke detectors > installed about every 50 feet. The rules on this are variable, but I have actually not come across a distance metric. Typically, there is a requirement to have at least one detector per floor per firewalled area, or even one per room. > These cameras are atypical > endpoints requiring upwards to 1 megabit/second (Mbit/s) data rates > per camera as contrasted by the few Kbits/s needed by most other FMS > sensing equipment. The deployment models differ again, though. Some devices operate in motion detection mode, others stream continuously, and yet others operate as web servers and are used on a per need basis. > A ten minute power outage may require many hours to regain building > control. Traffic flow may increase ten-fold until the building > control stabilizes. I wish it were made clearer that this is an undesirable state of affairs. > This demands an > adaptive routing protocol to allow for route optimization as the > network stabilizes. Wouldn't a bigger problem be loops or simply dropping traffic when it no longer matches what the router thinks it should be receiving? And isn't there rather a role for better higher-layer application behaviour, such as not blasting everything from the buffer during the first millisecond that the network appears to be up again? |
|
2009-09-24
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] The empty lines in Figure 1 make the viewing the picture hard. > Fire systems are much more uniformly installed with smoke detectors … [Ballot comment] The empty lines in Figure 1 make the viewing the picture hard. > Fire systems are much more uniformly installed with smoke detectors > installed about every 50 feet. The rules on this are variable, but I have actually not come across a distance metric. Typically, there is a requirement to have at least one detector per floor per firewalled area, or even one per room. |
|
2009-09-24
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] The empty lines in Figure 1 make the viewing the picture hard. |
|
2009-09-24
|
09 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
|
2009-09-23
|
09 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
|
2009-09-23
|
09 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms |
|
2009-09-23
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Derek Atkins. |
|
2009-09-23
|
09 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Robert Sparks has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Robert Sparks |
|
2009-09-23
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-09-23
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
|
2009-09-23
|
09 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot comment] Agree with Russ that the security requirements seems backwards. To me it appears that the protocol MUST have authentication, but it may not … [Ballot comment] Agree with Russ that the security requirements seems backwards. To me it appears that the protocol MUST have authentication, but it may not be used for specific reasons. However, I don't want to be in a building that deploys these systems without a security model. Especially if you they are using wireless communication. |
|
2009-09-23
|
09 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
|
2009-09-22
|
09 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot comment] Adrian's Discuss points to feedback I provided to version -05 of this document. Please consider the points in that review that aren't also … [Ballot comment] Adrian's Discuss points to feedback I provided to version -05 of this document. Please consider the points in that review that aren't also called out in Discuss a "Comment". |
|
2009-09-22
|
09 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot discuss] The document requires that the protocol be allowed to run with "no security". The protocol being considered involves devices connected to the Internet … [Ballot discuss] The document requires that the protocol be allowed to run with "no security". The protocol being considered involves devices connected to the Internet as a whole, and these words should be more carefully considered - the real requirement (at least one that I can infer from the text) is that the protocol support diagnostic configurations. I realize the intent of the document is to inform protocol development rather than deployment at this time, but I believe harm will come from publishing "Single tenant owner occupied office buildings installing lighting or HVAC control are candidates for implementing low or even no security on the LLN." At the very least, the document should let a building operator know what having unsecured Internet-connected controls on their lights and HVAC might result in. |
|
2009-09-22
|
09 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
|
2009-09-22
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] |
|
2009-09-22
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot discuss] Need to check that the GenArt review by Robert Sparks were addressed http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg03900.html Also that the late IETF last call comments by Alexandru … [Ballot discuss] Need to check that the GenArt review by Robert Sparks were addressed http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg03900.html Also that the late IETF last call comments by Alexandru Petrescu were addrssed http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg01046.html |
|
2009-09-22
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] Need to check that the GenArt review by Robert Sparks were addressed http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg03900.html Also that the late IETF last call comments by Alexandru … [Ballot comment] Need to check that the GenArt review by Robert Sparks were addressed http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg03900.html Also that the late IETF last call comments by Alexandru Petrescu were addrssed http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg01046.html |
|
2009-09-22
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to Discuss from Yes by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-09-22
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to Undefined from No Objection by Russ Housley |
|
2009-09-22
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] |
|
2009-09-22
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] The Gen-ART Review by Miguel Garcia on 21-Sep-2009 suggests that acronyms be expanded on first occurrence and add a references to them … [Ballot comment] The Gen-ART Review by Miguel Garcia on 21-Sep-2009 suggests that acronyms be expanded on first occurrence and add a references to them (if there are documents). This includes: SNMP, SYSLOG, COPS, XML, RADIUS, DIAMETER, NETCONF, IPFIX, DMTF, TMF, RMON, and NMS. |
|
2009-09-22
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
|
2009-09-15
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-07 Intended status : Informational Track > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the > Document … Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-07 Intended status : Informational Track > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the > Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the > document and, in particular, does he or she believe this > version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? JP Vasseur is the document shepherd and has personally reviewed the document and believes it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. > (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members > and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have > any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that > have been performed? The I-D has been discussed and reviewed by the Working group. > (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document > needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, > e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with > AAA, internationalization or XML? No concerns. > (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or > issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director > and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he > or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or > has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any > event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated > that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those > concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document > been filed? If so, please include a reference to the > disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on > this issue. The document is sound. That being said, the document does contain quite a bit of information that are out of the scope of the document but quite useful as background information to better understand the routing requirements spelled out in the document. This explains the presence of two informational appendixes. > (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it > represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with > others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and > agree with it? Good consensus. > (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme > discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in > separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It > should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is > entered into the ID Tracker.) No threats. No discontent. > (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the > document satisfies all ID nits? (See > http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are > not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document > met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB > Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Checks have been made. No Errors. > (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and > informative? Are there normative references to documents that > are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear > state? If such normative references exist, what is the > strategy for their completion? Are there normative references > that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If > so, list these downward references to support the Area > Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. References split. No downrefs. > (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA > consideration section exists and is consistent with the body > of the document? If the document specifies protocol > extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA > registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If > the document creates a new registry, does it define the > proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation > procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a > reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the > document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd > conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG > can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? No IANA action. > (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the > document that are written in a formal language, such as XML > code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in > an automated checker? No such formal language is used. > (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the > "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval > announcement contains the following sections: > > Technical Summary > Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract > and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be > an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract > or introduction. The Routing Over Low power and Lossy network (ROLL) Working Group has been chartered to work on routing solutions for Low Power and Lossy networks (LLN) in various markets: Industrial, Commercial (Building), Home and Urban networks. Pursuant to this effort, this document defines the IPv6 routing requirements for building automation. Commercial buildings have been fitted with pneumatic and subsequently electronic communication routes connecting sensors to their controllers for over one hundred years. Recent economic and technical advances in wireless communication allow facilities to increasingly utilize a wireless solution in lieu of a wired solution; thereby reducing installation costs while maintaining highly reliant communication. The cost benefits and ease of installation of wireless sensors allow customers to further instrument their facilities with additional sensors; providing tighter control while yielding increased energy savings. Wireless solutions will be adapted from their existing wired counterparts in many of the building applications including, but not limited to Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC), Lighting, Physical Security, Fire, and Elevator systems. These devices will be developed to reduce installation costs; while increasing installation and retrofit flexibility, as well as increasing the sensing fidelity to improve efficiency and building service quality. Sensing devices may be battery-less; battery or mains powered. Actuators and area controllers will be mains powered. Due to building code and/or device density (e.g. equipment room), it is envisioned that a mix of wired and wireless sensors and actuators will be deployed within a building. Facility Management Systems (FMS) are deployed in a large set of vertical markets including universities; hospitals; government facilities; Kindergarten through High School (K-12); pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities; and single-tenant or multi-tenant office buildings. These buildings range in size from 100K sqft structures (5 story office buildings), to 1M sqft skyscrapers (100 story skyscrapers) to complex government facilities such as the Pentagon. The described topology is meant to be the model to be used in all these types of environments, but clearly must be tailored to the building class, building tenant and vertical market being served. > Working Group Summary > Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For > example, was there controversy about particular points or > were there decisions where the consensus was particularly > rough? No controversy. > Document Quality > Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a > significant number of vendors indicated their plan to > implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that > merit special mention as having done a thorough review, > e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a > conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If > there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, > what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type > review, on what date was the request posted? The I-D is informational and specifies IPv6 routing requirements. |
|
2009-09-15
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'JP Vasseur (jvasseur@cisco.com) is the document shepherd' added by Cindy Morgan |
|
2009-09-14
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-07.txt |
|
2009-08-27
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins |
|
2009-08-27
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins |
|
2009-08-26
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Telechat date was changed to 2009-09-24 from 2009-09-10 by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-08-26
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-08-26
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-08-26
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-08-26
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2009-08-26
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-09-10 by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-08-07
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2009-08-07
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-06.txt |
|
2009-05-24
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Derek Atkins. |
|
2009-04-19
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-04-02
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Responsible AD has been changed to Adrian Farrel from David Ward |
|
2009-03-05
|
09 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
|
2009-02-26
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins |
|
2009-02-26
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins |
|
2009-02-23
|
09 | Amanda Baber | IANA Last Call comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
|
2009-02-19
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
|
2009-02-19
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan |
|
2009-02-19
|
09 | David Ward | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Last Call Requested by David Ward |
|
2009-02-19
|
09 | David Ward | Last Call was requested by David Ward |
|
2009-02-19
|
09 | David Ward | Last Call was requested by David Ward |
|
2009-02-19
|
09 | David Ward | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by David Ward |
|
2009-02-19
|
09 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2009-02-19
|
09 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2009-02-19
|
09 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2009-02-04
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-05 Intended status : Informational Track > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the > Document … Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-05 Intended status : Informational Track > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the > Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the > document and, in particular, does he or she believe this > version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? David Culler is the document shepherd. He and JP Vasseur have personally reviewed the document and believes it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. > (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members > and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have > any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that > have been performed? The I-D has been discussed and reviewed by the Working group. > (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document > needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, > e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with > AAA, internationalization or XML? No concerns. > (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or > issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director > and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he > or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or > has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any > event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated > that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those > concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document > been filed? If so, please include a reference to the > disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on > this issue. The document is sound. > (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it > represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with > others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and > agree with it? Good consensus. > (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme > discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in > separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It > should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is > entered into the ID Tracker.) No threats. No discontent. > (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the > document satisfies all ID nits? (See > http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are > not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document > met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB > Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Checks have been made. No Errors. > (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and > informative? Are there normative references to documents that > are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear > state? If such normative references exist, what is the > strategy for their completion? Are there normative references > that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If > so, list these downward references to support the Area > Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. References split. No downrefs. > (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA > consideration section exists and is consistent with the body > of the document? If the document specifies protocol > extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA > registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If > the document creates a new registry, does it define the > proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation > procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a > reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the > document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd > conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG > can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? No IANA action. > (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the > document that are written in a formal language, such as XML > code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in > an automated checker? No such formal language is used. > (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the > "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval > announcement contains the following sections: > > Technical Summary > Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract > and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be > an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract > or introduction. Commercial buildings have been fitted with pneumatic and subsequently electronic communication pathways connecting sensors to their controllers for over one hundred years. Recent economic and technical advances in wireless communication allow facilities to increasingly utilize a wireless solution in lieu of a wired solution; thereby reducing installation costs while maintaining highly reliant communication. The cost benefits and ease of installation of wireless sensors allow customers to further instrument their facilities with additional sensors; providing tighter control while yielding increased energy savings. Wireless solutions will be adapted from their existing wired counterparts in many of the building applications including, but not limited to Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC), Lighting, Physical Security, Fire, and Elevator systems. These devices will be developed to reduce installation costs; while increasing installation and retrofit flexibility, as well as increasing the sensing fidelity to improve efficiency and building service quality. Sensing devices may be battery-less; battery or mains powered. Actuators and area controllers will be mains powered. Due to building code and/or device density (e.g. equipment room), it is envisioned that a mix of wired and wireless sensors and actuators will be deployed within a building. Facility Management Systems (FMS) are deployed in a large set of vertical markets including universities; hospitals; government facilities; Kindergarten through High School (K-12); pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities; and single-tenant or multi-tenant office buildings. These buildings range in size from 100K sqft structures (5 story office buildings), to 1M sqft skyscrapers (100 story skyscrapers) to complex government facilities such as the Pentagon. The described topology is meant to be the model to be used in all these types of environments, but clearly must be tailored to the building class, building tenant and vertical market being served. The following sections describe the sensor, actuator, area controller and zone controller layers of the topology. (NOTE: The Building Controller and Enterprise layers of the FMS are excluded from this discussion since they typically deal in communication rates requiring LAN/WLAN communication technologies). Section 3 describes FMS architectures commonly installed in commercial buildings. Section 4 describes installation methods deployed for new and remodeled construction. Appendix A documents important commercial building requirements that are out of scope for routing yet will be essential to the final acceptance of the protocols used within the building. Appendix B describes various FMS use-cases and the interaction with humans for energy conservation and life-safety applications. Sections 3, 4, Appendix A and Appendix B are mainly included for educational purposes. The aim of this document is to provide the set of IPv6 routing requirements for LLNs in buildings as described in Section 5. > Working Group Summary > Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For > example, was there controversy about particular points or > were there decisions where the consensus was particularly > rough? No controversy. > Document Quality > Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a > significant number of vendors indicated their plan to > implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that > merit special mention as having done a thorough review, > e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a > conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If > there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, > what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type > review, on what date was the request posted? The I-D is informational and specifies IPv6 routing requirements. |
|
2009-02-04
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Draft Added by Amy Vezza in state Publication Requested |
|
2009-02-04
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-05.txt |
|
2009-02-03
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-04.txt |
|
2009-02-02
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-03.txt |
|
2009-01-14
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-02.txt |
|
2008-10-30
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-01.txt |
|
2008-10-27
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-00.txt |