Problem Statement and Requirements for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Routing
RFC 6606

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.

(Ralph Droms) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

Comment (2010-05-20 for -)
No email
send info
I have a few questions:

Section 4., paragraph 15:
>        *  Classes of Service:
>           For mixing applications of different criticality on one
>           LoWPAN, support of multiple classes of service may be required
>           in resource-constrained LoWPANs and may require a certain
>           degree of routing protocol overhead.

  I'm not sure I see why. QoS support typically involves end-to-end
  transport functions and more complex *queueing*, but not routing
  *protocol* overheads. Could you explain?

Section 4., paragraph 17:
>    b.  Node Parameters:

  Isn't queuing strategy and queue buffer size also a parameter?

Section 4., paragraph 21:
>        *  Traffic Pattern:
>           This parameter affects routing since highly loaded nodes
>           (either because they are the source of packets to be
>           transmitted or due to forwarding) may contribute to higher
>           delivery delays and may consume more energy than lightly
>           loaded nodes.  This applies to both data packets and routing
>           control messages.

  Again, I'm not sure I understand. Why does the volume of application
  data sent or received by some nodes affect the routing *protocol*?

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2010-09-29)
No email
send info
I remain unhappy about the objective of this document within the IETF since it seems to be capturing requirements for routing in a 6lowpan that form a subset of the requirements already documented and addressed by the ROLL working group. Nevertheless, since my gripes are mainly about process, I am taking them out of my Discuss so that the document can proceed. I would still be happy to have it clarified to me how this document fits in with the ROLL effort.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Tim Polk) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2010-05-20)
No email
send info
Is there an example of a power affluent node that is *not* mains-powered?  And does this have
any impact on the routing requirements?

(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Sean Turner) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection