Subject: [Roll] Adoption of draft-levis-roll-protocols-survey as a ROLL WG document

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:50:24 +0200

Dear WG,

There was a good consensus to adopt draft-levis-roll-protocols-survey as a
ROLL WG document during the ROLL WG meeting in Dublin but as usual we need
to confirm on the mailing list.

Are you in favor/opposed adopting draft-levis-roll-protocols-survey
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-levis-roll-protocols-survey-02.tx
t) as a ROLL WG document ?

Note that the draft has been slightly updated to align it with the
presentation that was made during the meeting.

Thanks.

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

---

From: Zach Shelby <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:31:30 +0300

In favor!

JP Vasseur wrote:
> Dear WG,
> 
> There was a good consensus to adopt draft-levis-roll-protocols-survey as 
> a ROLL WG document during the ROLL WG meeting in Dublin but as usual we 
> need to confirm on the mailing list.
> 
> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-levis-roll-protocols-survey-02.txt) 
> as a ROLL WG document ?
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

-- 

Zach Shelby
Head of Research
Sensinode Ltd.
Kidekuja 2
88610 Vuokatti
FINLAND

mobile: +358 40 7796297

This e-mail and all attached material are confidential and may contain 
legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please contact the sender and delete the e-mail from your system without 
producing, distributing or retaining copies thereof.
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

---

From: "Anders Brandt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:05:11 +0200

I support it.
 
- Anders

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
JP Vasseur
Sent: 9. august 2008 22:50
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Roll] Adoption of draft-levis-roll-protocols-survey as a ROLL
WGdocument

Dear WG,

Are you in favor/opposed adopting draft-levis-roll-protocols-survey
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-levis-roll-protocols-survey-0
2.txt) as a ROLL WG document ?

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:34:42 +0200

Dear all,
 
In favor.
 
Cheers,
 
Christian.

	De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de JP Vasseur
	Envoyé : samedi 9 août 2008 22:50
	À : [email-masked]
	Objet : [Roll] Adoption of draft-levis-roll-protocols-survey as a ROLL WGdocument

	Dear WG,
	
	There was a good consensus to adopt draft-levis-roll-protocols-survey as a ROLL WG document during the ROLL WG meeting in Dublin but as usual we need to confirm on the mailing list.
	
	Are you in favor/opposed adopting draft-levis-roll-protocols-survey (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-levis-roll-protocols-survey-02.txt) as a ROLL WG document ?
	
	Note that the draft has been slightly updated to align it with the presentation that was made during the meeting.
	
	Thanks.
	
	JP. 

*********************************
This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. 
Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.
Messages are susceptible to alteration. 
France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified.
If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender.
********************************

---

From: Jonathan Hui <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:37:17 -0700

+1

It provides a good foundation for the discussion moving forward.

--
Jonathan Hui

On Aug 9, 2008, at 1:50 PM, JP Vasseur wrote:

> Dear WG,
>
> There was a good consensus to adopt draft-levis-roll-protocols- 
> survey as a ROLL WG document during the ROLL WG meeting in Dublin  
> but as usual we need to confirm on the mailing list.
>

---

From: "M. B. Anand" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:56:30 -0400

In favor.

Regards,
Anand.

> Dear WG,
>
> There was a good consensus to adopt draft-levis-roll-protocols-survey 
> as a ROLL WG document during the ROLL WG meeting in Dublin but as 
> usual we need to confirm on the mailing list.
>

---

From: Hongwei Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:41:28 -0400

In favor.

Best,

Hongwei

---

From: Zachary Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:48:04 -0700

in favor.

   z

> presentation that was made during the meeting.

Zachary Smith - CTO
http://www.daintree.net/

---

From: Tim Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:08:54 -0400

In favor.

-Tim

---

From: "Pete St. Pierre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:14:54 -0700

Sounds good!
...Pete

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:36:46 -0500

The survey as given in Dublin only included the Home,  Industrial and 
Urban routing requirements.  I presume this was because the Commercial 
Building requirements were not available until early July.  I would like 
the analysis to include the commercial building requirements. 

I also think that 'latency' should be a column on the decision matrix on 
page 9 of the document.  Embedded real-time systems are mission critical 
(e.g. Fire Alarming) where latency is a prime discriminator of the 
protocol used.  The routing algorithms are subject to this latency for 
example when a new path must be discovered while the packet is in transit.

I would like to postpone the adoption of the document as a ROLL WG 
document until these two items have been addressed.

Regards,

Jerry Martocci

JP Vasseur <[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked]
08/09/2008 03:50 PM

To
<[email-masked]>
cc

Subject
[Roll] Adoption of draft-levis-roll-protocols-survey as a ROLL WG document

Dear WG,

Are you in favor/opposed adopting draft-levis-roll-protocols-survey (
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-levis-roll-protocols-survey-02.txt
) as a ROLL WG document ?

Thanks.

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

---

From: Philip Levis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:13:22 -0700

On Aug 11, 2008, at 12:36 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

>
> The survey as given in Dublin only included the Home,  Industrial  
> and Urban routing requirements.  I presume this was because the  
> Commercial Building requirements were not available until early  
> July.  I would like the analysis to include the commercial building  
> requirements.

Will the commercial routing requirements change the set? That is, is  
one of the existing columns not a criterion of commercial  
applications? If so, then I agree. If not, an update would merely  
require adding the correct references.

> I also think that 'latency' should be a column on the decision  
> matrix on page 9 of the document.  Embedded real-time systems are  
> mission critical (e.g. Fire Alarming) where latency is a prime  
> discriminator of the protocol used.  The routing algorithms are  
> subject to this latency for example when a new path must be  
> discovered while the packet is in transit.

Home monitoring applications are often not mission-critical real-time  
systems, and so do not share this requirement. The closest they come  
is the need for low latency alarms, but these events are very rare.  
Following the methodology of the draft, this means it shouldn't  
include latency.

Phil

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:43:05 -0500

Phil,

I see 'latency' as an added requirement in addition to the ones defined 
not a replacement for an existing column,  So in that regard, we could add 
it later.   I guess I am not sure if making this document a ROLL WG 
document locks it out for future additions.  I also agree the 'home' 
market probably has a limited use case for latency, however, I would think 
the 'industrial' market would require no more latency than the 
'commercial' market.

Don't get me wrong, I think your document is a great start!  I just want 
to make sure we concern ourselves with the time-critical and deterministic 
nature of some of the applications.

Jerry

Philip Levis <[email-masked]> 
08/11/2008 03:13 PM

To
[email-masked]
cc
JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked], 
[email-masked]
Subject
Re: [Roll] Adoption of draft-levis-roll-protocols-survey as a ROLL WG 
document

Phil

---

From: Philip Levis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:54:23 -0700

> July.  I would like the analysis to include the commercial building  

Jerald,

The commercial draft is a fantastic start. It points out several ways  
in which this application space differs from the others and will be  
invaluable moving forward. Using hard numbers (10 hops, 255 nodes,  
etc.) is very helpful. A couple of comments:

1) The goal of the requirements drafts is to state the requirements of  
a routing protocol, not a system as a whoe. For example,  
18.Requirement says

"RFDs SHOULD target for operation using viable energy harvesting  
techniques such as ambient light, mechanical action, solar load, air  
pressure and differential temperature."

This is outside of ROLL's control and domain.

2) The draft seems to be very 6lowpan-specific. While ROLL is very  
concerned with 6lowpan, ROLL protocols can't be tied to it. Even  
within 6lowpan they're seeking to avoid 802.15.4-specific terminology  
such as FFD and RFD, as many systems today use the link layer but not  
MAC layer. E.g., ArchRock's 6lowpan stack operates on a completely ad- 
hoc network with low-power, battery-based devices.

3) Requirement 45 seems rather difficult: it suggests that ROLL cannot  
have any headers. Is this what you mean?

Phil

---

From: Philip Levis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:55:59 -0700

On Aug 11, 2008, at 2:43 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

>
> Phil,
>
> I see 'latency' as an added requirement in addition to the ones  
> defined not a replacement for an existing column,  So in that  
> regard, we could add it later.   I guess I am not sure if making  
> this document a ROLL WG document locks it out for future additions.   
> I also agree the 'home' market probably has a limited use case for  
> latency, however, I would think the 'industrial' market would  
> require no more latency than the 'commercial' market.

Jerald,

Ah, OK. The purpose of the document isn't to state all of the  
requirements of ROLL application domains. Instead, a subset, with the  
understanding that this subset may in fact be unable to satisfy any  
individual domain. "Necessary but not sufficient" is the key phrase.  
So in that way, the lack of latency there should not indicate that  
there aren't latency requirements, or that protocols ROLL considers  
won't be examined in terms of latency.

> Don't get me wrong, I think your document is a great start!  I just  
> want to make sure we concern ourselves with the time-critical and  
> deterministic nature of some of the applications.

I agree. But this concern is for when we examine concrete protocol  
mechanisms.

Phil

---

From: "Chol Su Kang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:11:32 -0700

I vote in favor.

Chol Su Kang

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
JP Vasseur
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 1:50 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Roll] Adoption of draft-levis-roll-protocols-survey as a ROLL
WGdocument

Dear WG,

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: "Mischa Dohler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:05:54 +0200

In favor. Mischa.

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of JP
Vasseur
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 10:50 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Roll] Adoption of draft-levis-roll-protocols-survey as a ROLL
WGdocument

Dear WG,

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:17:07 +0200

Hi Jerry,

You¹re absolutely right that the requirements spelled out in the Building
Automation documents MUST and will be taken into account, and I¹m sure that
Phil is planning to look at it once it will become a WG document. For the
time being, there is no need to postpone the WG adoption.

Cheers,

JP.

On 8/11/08 9:36 PM, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> 
> The survey as given in Dublin only included the Home,  Industrial and Urban
> routing requirements.  I presume this was because the Commercial Building
> requirements were not available until early July.  I would like the analysis
> to include the commercial building requirements.
> 
> I also think that 'latency' should be a column on the decision matrix on page
> 9 of the document.  Embedded real-time systems are mission critical (e.g. Fire
> Alarming) where latency is a prime discriminator of the protocol used.  The
> routing algorithms are subject to this latency for example when a new path
> must be discovered while the packet is in transit.
> 
> I would like to postpone the adoption of the document as a ROLL WG document
> until these two items have been addressed.
> 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Jerry Martocci 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent by: [email-masked] 08/09/2008 03:50 PM
> To 
> <[email-masked]> 
> cc
> Subject 
> ROLL WG document during the ROLL WG meeting in Dublin but as usual we need to
> confirm on the mailing list.
> 
> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-levis-roll-protocols-survey-02.txt
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-levis-roll-protocols-survey-02.txt>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:08:43 -0500

Agreed.  I don't want to hold anything up.   Just want to make sure we're 
considering all application domains.

08/12/2008 03:17 AM

To
<[email-masked]>
cc
<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Subject
Re: [Roll] Adoption of draft-levis-roll-protocols-survey as a ROLL WG 
document

Hi Jerry,

You?re absolutely right that the requirements spelled out in the Building 
Automation documents MUST and will be taken into account, and I?m sure 
that Phil is planning to look at it once it will become a WG document. For 
the time being, there is no need to postpone the WG adoption.

Cheers,

JP.

On 8/11/08 9:36 PM, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]

Regards, 

Jerry Martocci 

Dear WG,

<

Thanks.