Subject: [Roll] RPL: proposed next steps

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 07:57:25 +0200

Dear all,

We now have solid foundations for RPL, still lots of work ahead, but  
we are moving really well.

I would like to propose you to focus on the following items for the  
next revisions:
1) Simplification
2) FSM
3) Security
4) Management

1) Simplification

it is perfectly fine to start with a full set of features to cope with  
many situations, support a wide scope of functionalities, ... but we  
now need to start the "simplification" process. Several of  
implementers expressed some concerns about the level of complexity  
that we ended up with. I do share them, David also. The objective is  
now to identify the components that are optional or advanced features  
and deserved to be specified in separate IDs to handle specific  
situations. The core of RPL must be significantly simpler to run on  
potentially highly constrained devices.
We all need to now identify what could we removed from the core  
specification (and as I said potentially move to separate IDs).

Please send your suggestions on the list.

Note also that as indicated by the authors, the next revision will  
incorporate some clean-up, clarification, loop avoidance mechanisms  
(see Tim's email).

2) FSM

Once we have the "core" specification stabilized (hopefully fairly  
soon), the FSM will be added right away. This is an absolute MUST  
since several of you indicated that they started coding (with is a  
great news), we need the FSM in good shape to ensure interoperability.

3) Security
Look at the new revision of the Framework I-D, that will be discussed  
at the Interim WG meeting. We now need to start working on security  
for RPL.

4) Management
A manageability section has been added. As specified in the  
requirement documents, manageability is a key component of RPL, which  
implies to start developing the MIB module, OAM tools, ...

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:46:14 -0400

>>>>> "JP" == JP Vasseur <[email-masked]> writes:
    JP> Dear all,

    JP> We now have solid foundations for RPL, still lots of work ahead,
    JP> but we are moving really well.

    JP> I would like to propose you to focus on the following items for
    JP> the next revisions: 1) Simplification 2) FSM 3) Security 4)
    JP> Management

One comment I will make (and the FSM work will make this explicit), is
that the description has to describe how a single node works, not how
the network of them work.  I.e. it must be written from the single-node
first person, not in the 10,000ft "god" looking down, third-person.

(Not yet an implementor. I am planning a Linux, UML/Android implementation)

-- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [