Subject: [6lowpan] #115: IESG comment #24 (by the Routing Area Directorate) - Requirement 10

From: "6lowpan issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:43:18 -0000

#115: IESG comment #24 (by the Routing Area Directorate) - Requirement 10
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Reporter:  carlesgo@…              |       Owner:     
     Type:  task                    |      Status:  new
 Priority:  minor                   |   Milestone:     
Component:  routing-requirements    |     Version:     
 Severity:  -                       |    Keywords:     
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Section 1:

 - States "More stringent requirements apply to LoWPANs, as opposed to
 higher performance or non-battery-operated networks."

 Whereas RFC 4919 (Section 4.2) clearly indicates that "multi-hop" routing
 is being typically ensured by Full Featured Devices (FFD)/m-node that have
 more capabilities in terms of power, computation, etc than RFD and thus
 act as forwarders/routers. The fundamental question behind is "are host
 expected to participate to the "LowPAN" routing system or not" ?

 On the same line RFC 4944 states "Only Full Function Devices (FFDs) are
 expected to participate as routers in a mesh. "Reduced Function Devices"
 (RFDs) limit themselves to discovering FFDs and using them for all their
 forwarding, in a manner similar to how IP hosts typically use default
 routers to forward all their off-link traffic.  For an RFD using mesh
 delivery, the "forwarder" is always the appropriate FFD."

 Requirement R10 (Section 5.3) should be revised accordingly.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/115>
6lowpan <http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/>

---

From: "6lowpan issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:44:30 -0000

#115: IESG comment #24 (by the Routing Area Directorate) - Requirement 10
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Reporter:  carlesgo@…              |        Owner:        
     Type:  task                    |       Status:  closed
 Priority:  minor                   |    Milestone:        
Component:  routing-requirements    |      Version:        
 Severity:  -                       |   Resolution:  fixed 
 Keywords:                          |  
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Changes (by carlesgo@…):

  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => fixed

Comment:

 We initially had the distinction of FFDs and RFDs in our document, but
 later took it out because we got many comments along the lines of “who
 uses RFDs anyway?”. So in our opinion, yes, every 6lowpan host is
 basically an FFD.

 According to this viewpoint, we do not find the reason to change R10.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/115#comment:1>
6lowpan <http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/>

---

From: "6lowpan issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 08:27:17 -0000

#115: IESG comment #24 (by the Routing Area Directorate) - Requirement 10
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Reporter:  carlesgo@…              |        Owner:          
     Type:  task                    |       Status:  reopened
 Priority:  minor                   |    Milestone:          
Component:  routing-requirements    |      Version:          
 Severity:  -                       |   Resolution:          
 Keywords:                          |  
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Changes (by carlesgo@…):

  * status:  closed => reopened
  * resolution:  fixed =>

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/115#comment:2>
6lowpan <http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/>

---

From: "6lowpan issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:56:34 -0000

#115: IESG comment #24 (by the Routing Area Directorate) - Requirement 10
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Reporter:  carlesgo@…              |        Owner:        
     Type:  enhancement             |       Status:  closed
 Priority:  minor                   |    Milestone:        
Component:  routing-requirements    |      Version:        
 Severity:  -                       |   Resolution:  fixed 
 Keywords:                          |  
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Changes (by eunah.ietf@…):

  * status:  reopened => closed
  * type:  task => enhancement
  * resolution:  => fixed

Comment:

 With more discussion, the following text will be in -07 in order to
 explain the position of this document about RFD/FFDs.

 "802.15.4 distinguishes two classes of devices: full-function devices
 (FFDs) and reduced-function devices (RFDs).
 As this distinction is based on some MAC features that are not always in
 use, we are not using this distinction in this document.
 However, some nodes in the network will limit themselves to the role of
 hosts only, while some other nodes will take part in the routing.  This
 host/router distinction can correlate with the processing capabilities of
 the device and power available in a similar way to the idea of RFDs and
 FFDs."

 About R10, the new version will contain the following text:
 " Specially in large networks, the routing mechanims MUST be designed
 that much smaller number of nodes participate in routing/forwarding
 than the number of nodes participated in the LoWPAN."

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/115#comment:3>
6lowpan <http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/>