Subject: [Roll] Adoption of draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-01 as a ROLL WG Document

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:12:59 -0400

Dear WG,

A new revision of draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs has been published
addressing a number of comments (the authors mentioned to us that there are
still a few comments to address that require some discussion the list).

Could you tell us whether you are in favor or opposed to the adoption of
draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-01
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-01
.txt) as a ROLL WG document ?

Thanks.

JP.
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

---

From: "Chol Su Kang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:31:34 -0700

Hi JP,

I am in favor of accepting the draft.

Regards,

Chol Su Kang

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
JP Vasseur
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:13 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Roll] Adoption of draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-01 as a
ROLL WG Document

Dear WG,

A new revision of draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs has been
published addressing a number of comments (the authors mentioned to us
that there are still a few comments to address that require some
discussion the list).

Could you tell us whether you are in favor or opposed to the adoption of
draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-01
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-req
s-01.txt) as a ROLL WG document ?

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: "Tarun Banka (tabanka)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:46:51 -0700

Hi JP,
 
I am in favor of adoption of this draft.
 
Thanks,
Tarun

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Jean Philippe Vasseur (jvasseur)
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:13 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Roll] Adoption of draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-01 as a
ROLL WG Document

Dear WG,

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: "Shitanshu Shah (svshah)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:06:25 -0700

in favor
 
Shitanshu

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Jean Philippe Vasseur (jvasseur)
	Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:13 AM
	To: [email-masked]
	Subject: [Roll] Adoption of
draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-01 as a ROLL WG Document

	Dear WG,

	Could you tell us whether you are in favor or opposed to the
adoption of draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-01
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-req
s-01.txt) as a ROLL WG document ?
	
	Thanks.
	
	JP.

---

From: "Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:41:43 +0530

Hi All,
 
Terminologies & Requirements are very well elaborated, I am in favor of
the same.
 
TYPO Section 2.2: A plant or corporate network is also present on the
factory site. This is the typical IT "nework" for the factory operations
beyond process control.

Regards,
Prashant Jhingran

Phone:   +91-80-442 61800

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Jean Philippe Vasseur (jvasseur)
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:43 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Roll] Adoption of draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-01 as a
ROLL WG Document

Dear WG,

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: Jaudelice de Oliveira <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:20:45 -0400

In favor!

Cheers,
Jau.

On Apr 23, 2008, at 12:12 PM, JP Vasseur wrote:

> published addressing a number of comments (the authors mentioned to  
> us that there are still a few comments to address that require some  
> discussion the list).
>
> adoption of draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-01 (http:// 
> www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pister-roll-indus-routing- 
> reqs-01.txt) as a ROLL WG document ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> JP.

---

From: Pieter De Mil <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:21:02 +0200

In favor.

Pieter

JP Vasseur wrote:
> Could you tell us whether you are in favor or opposed to the adoption 
> of draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-01 
> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-01.txt) 
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-01.txt%29> 
> as a ROLL WG document ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> JP.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

-- 
Pieter De Mil
Department of Information Technology (INTEC)
Ghent University
Gaston Crommenlaan 8 (Bus 201), B-9050 Gent, Belgium
tel.: +32-9331 4981; tel. secr.: +32-9331 4900
fax: +32-9331 4899
[email-masked]
http://www.ibcn.intec.ugent.be

Confidentiality Statement:
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, copying, distribution, or other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error please notify INTEC immediately and then delete this e-mail. INTEC does not accept liability for the correct and complete transmission of the information, nor for any delay or interruption of the transmission, nor for damages arising from the use of or reliance on the information. 
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

---

From: "Mischa Dohler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:54:29 +0200

I am in favor. Mischa.

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of JP
Vasseur
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 6:13 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Roll] Adoption of draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-01 as a
ROLL WG Document

Dear WG,

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: Jonathan Hui <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:59:47 -0700

Kris and Pascal:

First off, significant step forward from the initial draft. I'm in  
favor of adopting this as a WG doc.

Some comments on the latest draft:

- Section 2.1: Last paragraph on 'critical control', are we really  
trying to address this?

- We need to tighten up the terminology in Section 2.2, bringing in  
IETF terms where we mean them and clarifying other terms where we  
don't. Specifically, I think it's important to clarify the network  
architecture needed to support industrial applications. For example,  
the current figure in 2.2.1 and the use of 'gateway', 'backbone  
router', etc. seem to imply that the network architecture operates as  
a single link-local scope. I hope that's not intended here, as what  
does it mean to do IP routing when communication is limited to a  
single IP link? Are the backbone routers doing IP-level routing? Does  
the gateway only provide application-level services? I know this is  
borrowed directly from ISA100.11a, but we should map the terms  
appropriately and define them clearly.

- Section 2.2.1, last paragraph, there's a mention to 'constrained  
routes'. At the first ROLL WG meeting, we had a good discussion of  
whether or not we really mean to say 'constraint-based routing' or  
not. There was concern that 'constraint-based' routing, as known  
within the IETF, is a difficult problem.

- Section 3, Periodic Data: The last sentence requires a bit more  
clarification. Even if the network delivered the data in bursts, the  
application could be appropriately designed to handle the bursts  
simply by buffering the data (i.e. traffic-shaping at the application- 
layer).

- Section 3, Event Data: priority service for what? throughput? latency?

- Section 3, Bulk Transfer: be a little careful with the last sentence  
there, it's suggesting a solution space, not characterizing the  
application requirements. This point is addressed in the following  
paragraph anyway.

- Section 3.1: The wording could use some improvement. How is the  
first MUST really different from the second MUST? I think the second  
implies the first.

- Section 5, last paragraph: Again, did you really mean 'constraint- 
based' routing?

- Section 6: what is 'broadcast' addressing in IPv6?

--
Jonathan Hui

On Apr 23, 2008, at 9:12 AM, JP Vasseur wrote:

> adoption of draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-01 (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-01.txt 
> ) as a ROLL WG document ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> JP.

---

From: Kris Pister <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:03:24 -0700

Jonathan - thanks for the feedback.  Responses inline.

> - Section 2.1: Last paragraph on 'critical control', are we really 
It's unclear at this point how this will shake out, but it seemed like 
erring on the side of breadth was the right idea at least in the early 
going.  Two years ago I would have said that it was going to be a long 
time before industrial people would use wireless for any kind of 
control.  They were so incredibly, ahh, diligent about investigating 
reliability for non-critical monitoring that it seemed certain that the 
bar would be a lot higher for control.  However, it appears that now 
that they've vetted the technology, they actually seem quite eager to 
put it into control applications.  We'll just have to see how far that 
goes, but I have heard plant managers in several different places say 
that they think that their wireless networks may end up being more 
reliable than their wired networks!
> appropriately and define them clearly.
Definitely not advocating a particular solution.  You're right that 
we're using the industrial automation terminology here, but that is not 
intended to constrain us to single link-local scope.  We just need to 
get the definition mapping correct, as you point out.  Any suggestions?
> within the IETF, is a difficult problem.
Can you point me to something that will help me understand the IETF 
definition of constrained routing, and what the concerns are?  My 
definition may be different, but I think that constrained routing is 
what makes this such a challenging and interesting problem. 
> simply by buffering the data (i.e. traffic-shaping at the 
> application-layer).
Agreed that we need to clarify.  I think that Pascal and I have both 
talked with different end users and have come up with a blend of their 
requirements here that isn't actually faithful to either.  We'll clean 
it up.
> - Section 3, Event Data: priority service for what? throughput? latency?
Latency.
> application requirements. This point is addressed in the following 
I was trying to address one of David's comments here.  Any suggestions?  
Strike the last sentence?
> first MUST really different from the second MUST? I think the second 
In the first case, the routing algorithm is changing the underlying 
provisioning.  This is a MUST, since until the service is requested it's 
quite likely that the underlying layer will be idling along at some very 
low power setting.
In the second case, it's the fact that after the routing algorithm has 
set up routes and provisioned, the L2 environment may/will change, and 
the protocol needs to be able to adjust to that dynamically as well.
>
> - Section 5, last paragraph: Again, did you really mean 
> 'constraint-based' routing?
Again, I did.  But did what I meant mean the same thing to you :)
> - Section 6: what is 'broadcast' addressing in IPv6?
My understanding is that we need to avoid being specific to v4 or v6, 
hence the "or".

ksjp

>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>