Subject: [6lowpan] LLN roadmap documents: more missing pieces

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:39:06 -0400

In a private (IM) chat between Carsten Bormann and I, we realized that there
was prescious little consensus about what building blocks will be used
where.  

For instance, I have assumed that a ROLL RPL network would not need 
the ND parts of 6lowpan-ND, only the DAD parts (if DAD was important).

That ND was unnecessary in for RPL nodes as the DAOs and DIOs served the
same purpose.  This surprised some others.  What Carsten said was that
some kind of roadmap was necessary.

In another hallway conversation at Paris, I came to understand that for
layer-2==Zigbee, that on Zigbee Controllers would ever need to run RPL,
and that the regular nodes (such as light switches, forgive me, I do not
recall their Zigbee name), would only communicate with a controller.

This in contrast to what I know the home automation/P2P people are
doing.

Finally, I wanted to bring your attention to 
  draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt

which I'm told 6man is supposed to consider.  
On some networks you can not send the DAOs or NDs out until you do this.

I want to ask if it belongs in ROLL or 6lowpan.

-- 
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works 
IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/

---

From: Don Sturek <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:51:39 -0700

Hi Michael,

Don Sturek, chair for the ZigBee Core Stack working group (our group is
standarding "ZigBee IP" which is a configured collection of IETF drafts
supporting the Smart Energy Profile 2.0 over IEEE802.15.4)

It is our group who are looking to standardize MLE (in your note below).
That protocol provides the ability to share link quality information among
one hop neighbors plus other information (eg, long addresses of neighbors)
to allow for an intelligent neighbor selection for mesh routing (including
ROLL RPL).

Also, in your list below, we support 6LoWPAN ND (not just DAD), MLE, ROLL
RPL (non-storing) among other IETF protocols for our solution.

We discussed MLE within ZigBee IP and I was not clear on whether ROLL
would be the right WG.   For sure, I don't think 6LoWPAN is the right
place since this protocol can work over mesh networks that are not
necessarily employing 6LoWPAN.  I think the options we discussed were ROLL
and an Internet Area submission.

Don

On 6/12/12 12:39 PM, "Michael Richardson" <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:18:35 +0100

Hi Michael, Don, and all,

>What Carsten said was that some kind of roadmap was necessary.
I agree with Mr.Carsten,

>I want to ask if it belongs in ROLL or 6lowpan.
IMHO, it belongs to 6lowpan WG first, and it MAY be for ROLL as well,
overall, I think the WG AD can give us the best feedback and suggestion.

>For sure, I don't think 6LoWPAN is the right
>place since this protocol can work over mesh networks
>that are not necessarily employing 6LoWPAN.

if the protocol can work else than 6LoWPAN, then
IMHO we should let each group face its use-case problems,
not to give a protocol that works in many conditions to
only one WG or two. Each WG SHOULD look at its purpose case
for any particular protocol (as needed to be used is such area).

>the ZigBee Core Stack working group

I am looking for the group, but not found,
this group is not an IETF group yet !

I don't see the IETF has a cooperation with Zigbee standards. If I am
mistaken
please inform me, IMO we should not depend on the Zigbee-WG, until it
becomes IETF WG,

Therefore, the work you pointed to, should be considered by both 6LoWPAN
and ROLL.

Regards

Abdussalam Baryun,
University of Glaorgan, UK.
===============================================