Subject: [6lowpan] WG last call on Routing Requirements draft

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:21:23 -0600

Folks,
  This note formally starts the WG Last Call for comments on
draft-ietf-6lowpan-routing-requirements-04.txt, "Problem Statement and
Requirements for 6LoWPAN Routing".

The document can be found at:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-6lowpan-routing-requirements-04.txt

The document is intended to be submitted by this Working Group to the
IESG for publication as an Informational Document.

Please review the document carefully (one last time), and send your
comments to the 6lowpan list.  Please also indicate in your response
whether or not you think this document is ready to go to the IESG.

This Last Call will end on Thursday 1 October 2009 at 2359 UTC.

        Thanks,
                Geoff & Carsten

---

From: Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 19:00:51 +0900

I support it as an Informational RFC publication.

Thanks all author of document and your valuable efforts on it.

Daniel

On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
>

-- 

Soohong Daniel Park
Standard Architect, http://blog.naver.com/natpt
DMC Business, Samsung Electronics, KOREA

NOTE: 본 메일은 Gmail에서 발송되었습니다

---

From: "Carl Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 09:43:35 -0400

I have read both documents and previous comments I had were addressed a
while back.

They are easy to read and very useful.

I support both the Use-Case document and Routing requirements document to be
moved forward.

Thanks for all the authors for all their hard work.

Carl

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Geoff Mulligan
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 8:21 PM
To: 6lowpan
Subject: [6lowpan] WG last call on Routing Requirements draft

Folks,

        Thanks,
                Geoff & Carsten

---

From: 김형준 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 01:52:56 +0900

I also strongly support two documents to be moved forward.
Thanks for editors for their voluntary hard work.
Sincerely,

Hyoung Jun Kim
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Carl Williams
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 10:44 PM
To: 'Geoff Mulligan'; '6lowpan'
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] WG last call on Routing Requirements draft

Carl

-----Original Message-----

Folks,

        Thanks,
                Geoff & Carsten

---

From: Jung-Soo Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 02:39:17 +0900

I support this to be moved forward.
Thanks for your hard works.

Best regards

Jungsoo, Park

---

From: "Robert Assimiti" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 15:29:13 -0400

After reviewing the documents, you also have my support.

Thks

"The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from." - Andrew S. Tanenbaum 
Robert Assimiti
Executive Staff Engineer
Office: [678]-202-6859
Mobile: [404]-578-0205
[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ???
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 12:53 PM
To: [email-masked]; Geoff Mulligan; 6lowpan
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] WG last call on Routing Requirements draft

Hyoung Jun Kim
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Carl Williams
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 10:44 PM
To: 'Geoff Mulligan'; '6lowpan'
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] WG last call on Routing Requirements draft

Carl

-----Original Message-----

Folks,

        Thanks,
                Geoff & Carsten

This e-mail (including any attachments to it) is confidential, proprietary, legally privileged, subject to copyright and is sent for the personal attention of the intended recipient only. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply to advise us immediately, delete it and destroy any printed copies of it. You are notified that reading, disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. No employee is authorized to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of NIVIS LLC with another party by e-mail without express written confirmation by an officer of the company. Although we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this e-mail, we cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the viruses in this e-mail or attachments.

---

From: "S.M.Saif Shams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 15:53:59 -0700 (PDT)

Hi,

I think this is a timely step to get an acceptable 6lowpan routing strategy. It may add new thoughts on route-over and mesh-under routing in 6lowpan. Hope to see a successful result of this draft.

Regards,
Saif Shams

________________________________
From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
To: 6lowpan <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2009 2:21:23 AM
Subject: [6lowpan] WG last call on Routing Requirements draft

Folks,

        Thanks,
                Geoff & Carsten

---

From: Ki-Hyung Kim (김기형) <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:10:28 +0900

I believe these documents give useful direction on the routing and use case
issues of 6lowpan to the relevant readers.
It is the time to move forward next step with these drafts and I support
them.

Thanks for all the authors.

__
Ki-Hyung Kim

---

From: Hamid Mukhtar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:45:58 +0900

Hi,

I have reviewed the use-case and routing requirements drafts. I think
they are in good shape and ready to move forward.

Hamid

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 15:38:24 +0200

Dear all,

I do believe that this document is NOT ready for publication.

The fundamental issue has to do with what is called "6LoWPAN Routing"  
and this not just a terminology issue but an architectural and  
procedural issue.

In this document, several characteristics of the issues and challenges  
of routing in constrained and loosy environments are listed, nothing  
new to what is done in the ROLL Working Group. You mention that IP  
routing and what is referred to as Mesh-Under Routing can be used in  
such environment. So what is the aim of this document ?

1) Is it to provide routing requirement for L3 (route over) ?
2) Is it to provide routing requirement for L2 (mesh under) ?

If 1), then you may want to see with the ROLL WG whether some of the  
data could be used for this WG that is not already covered by the  
existing routing requirements documents.
If 2), what is the intent of the document since we do not rightly (at  
the IETF) intend to specify a L2 "routing" protocol for a specific  
media such as 802.15.4.

I could provide lengthy comments but that figure 2 summarizes most my  
concerns:

  Figure 1 shows the place of 6LoWPAN routing in the entire network
    stack.

     +-----------------------------+    +-----------------------------+
     |  Application Layer          |    |  Application Layer          |
     +-----------------------------+    +-----------------------------+
     |  Transport Layer (TCP/UDP)  |    |  Transport Layer (TCP/UDP)  |
     +-----------------------------+    +-----------------------------+
     |  Network Layer (IPv6)       |    |  Network       +---------+  |
     +-----------------------------+    |  Layer         | Routing |  |
     |  6LoWPAN       +---------+  |    |  (IPv6)        +---------+  |
     |  Adaptation    | Routing*|  |    +-----------------------------+
     |  Layer         +---------+  |    |  6LoWPAN Adaptation Layer   |
     +-----------------------------+    +-----------------------------+
     |  IEEE 802.15.4 (MAC)        |    |  IEEE 802.15.4 (MAC)        |
     +-----------------------------+    +-----------------------------+
     |  IEEE 802.15.4 (PHY)        |    |  IEEE 802.15.4 (PHY)        |
     +-----------------------------+    +-----------------------------+
     * Here, 'Routing' is not equivalent to IP routing,
       but includes the functionalities of path computation and
       forwarding under the IP layer.

         Figure 1: Mesh Under (left) and Route Over routing (right)

The right part is what we do at the IETF, in ROLL.
The left part looks like a new "architecture" to me, an adaptation  
layer performing routing. I guess that you in fact mean routing at the  
MAC layer, in which case, you may want to discuss it with IEEE.

Just another example:

"When a 6LoWPAN follows the Mesh Under configuration, the LoWPAN Edge
    Router (ER) is the only IPv6 router in the 6LoWPAN (see Figure 3).
    This means that the IPv6 link-local scope includes all nodes in the
    LoWPAN.  For this, a Mesh Under mechanism MUST be provided to  
support
    multi-hop transmission."
What is this normative "MUST" aimed at ?

Furthermore there are many other issues with the document but the  
statements above should hopefully help to show that the document  
should not be published. I know that this is informational, still we  
need to be cautious of what we publish as RFCs.

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: josep paradells <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:03:46 +0200

Hi 6LoWPANners,

First of all, I would like to express my support to moving forward the 
document. It offers very useful information for people working on the 
use of IP on top of LoWPANs.

Regarding the objections expressed by JP Vasseur on the list, I would 

>In this document, several characteristics of the issues and challenges 
of routing in
>constrained and loosy environments are listed, nothing new to what is 
done in the
>ROLL Working Group.

IMHO, this is not true. ROLL has focused on application requirements, 
while 6LoWPAN has focused on 802.15.4-based requirements. There is, of 
course, some overlap between both, but I think this is not a problem. 
Instead, these two approaches complement each other gracefully.

On the other hand, note that the first 6LoWPAN routing requirements 
draft was submitted almost a year before the ROLL (then called RL2N) BoF 
took place.

>You mention that IP routing and what is referred to as Mesh-
>Under Routing can be
>used in such environment. So what is the aim of this document ?

The aim of the document is clearly stated in the abstract of the document:

“6LoWPANs are formed by devices that are compatible with the IEEE 
802.15.4 standard. However, neither the IEEE 802.15.4 standard nor the 
6LoWPAN format specification define how mesh topologies could be 
obtained and maintained. Thus, it should be considered how 6LoWPAN 
formation and multi-hop routing could be supported. This document 
provides the problem statement and design space for 6LoWPAN routing. It 
defines the routing requirements for 6LoWPAN networks, considering the 
low-power and other particular characteristics of the devices and links. 
The purpose of this document is not to recommend specific solutions, but 
to provide general, layer-agnostic guidelines about the design of 
6LoWPAN routing, which can lead to further analysis and protocol design. 
This document is intended as input to groups working on routing 
protocols relevant to 6LoWPAN, such as the IETF ROLL WG.”

>  If 1), then you may want to see with the ROLL WG whether some of the 
data could
>be used for this WG that is not already covered by the existing routing 
requirements
>documents.
the IETF) intend to specify a L2 "routing"
>protocol for a specific media such as 802.15.4.

I think this reasoning is not valid and Carsten Bormann gave already a 
good explanation for this in the e-mail
he sent to the list in August 7, as a reply to the e-mail you sent the 
same day.

Furthermore, personally, I believe that this separation between L2 and 
L3 functionality is not that clear.
For example, it is possible to find routes using IP addresses and 
performing packet/frame forwarding using L2 addresses.

>The left part looks like a new "architecture" to me, an adaptation layer 
performing
>routing. I guess that you in fact mean routing at the MAC layer, in 
which case, you
>may want to discuss it with IEEE.

The same as before applies to this comment (please refer to Carsten’s 
e-mail of August 7). In addition, the figure just illustrates what is 
defined in RFC 4944, which is the base document describing how to 
transmit IPv6 packets on top of IEEE 802.15.4 networks.

As a final remark, from your e-mail, it seems like you are questioning 
the existence of the document. Let me remind you that the 6LoWPAN WG 
agreed some time ago on the current charter, which has the following item:

“4. As a separate Internet Draft, "6LoWPAN Routing Requirements" will 
describe 6LoWPAN-specific requirements on routing protocols used in 
6LoWPANs, addressing both the "route-over" and "mesh-under" approach. 
This document will be created and owned by this working group but is 
expected to be reviewed by the ROLL WG. This document will be 
informational.”

And another important point is that the WG reached consensus on adopting 
the document as a WG document almost a year ago in the IETF meeting in 
Minneapolis in November 2008. According to the minutes, you were there.

Regards,

Josep Paradells