Dear all, Please below the minutes of the RL2N pre-WG meeting that took place on Nov 15 in Boston. The meeting was extremely fruitful and productive with a excellent consensus between the attendees and we made significant progress on several fronts. Of course, nothing is decided during meetings and is shared with you on the list for comments/suggestions/... Instead of capturing the minutes in a narrative form, you will find below the outcome of productive discussions. We had an excellent representation from end-users, Service Providers, Vendors, Academia: Attendees * Kris Pister: Dust Networks * David Culler: Arch Rock * Ralph King: Crossbow * Anders Brandt: Zensys * Mary Murphy-Hoye: Intel * Ed Butker: Intel * Pete St Pierre: Sun * Andrew Mc Lachlan: British Telecom * Nabil Bitar: Verizon * Misha Dolher: France Telecom * Pierre Colle: Schneider Electric * Todd Snide: Schneider Electric * Phil Levis: Standford * Jaudelice D. Olveira: Drexel * Jim Butler: Cimetrics * JP Vasseur: Cisco * David Ward: IETF RTG AD Several people mentioned that they were interested but could not attend this meeting - Will be in Vancouver. Agenda And Objectives - Review of the current Routing Requirements ID: - draft-brandt-rl2n-home-routing-reqs-01- Anders - draft-pister-rl2n-industrial-routing-reqs-01- Kris - draft-levis-rl2n-overview-protocols-01 - Phil - Discussion of the Proposed WG charter and Milestones - Interaction with other SDOs, Industrial Alliances - Open issues Summary JP/David: Introduction, historical background, objectives. Anders: overview of the Routing requirement for Connected Home Discussion of the specific routing requirements in the home. draft-brandt-rl2n-home-routing-reqs is a good basis, further discussion on the list. Particular attention should be given to routing manageability in home networks (self-configuration) of the routing protocols. Kris: overview of the Routing requirement for Industrial application ID already well fleshed out, driven by a strong experience in deploying sensor networks in such environments. Very specific constraints (see the ID). Phil: overview of the protocol survey The aim of the document is to serve as a base to decide whether we can borrow an existing routing protocol (potentially with adaptations), we need to define a new protocol, ... Important work item for the potential future WG. New revision to be posted for this IETF. Still several items to be covered (security, manageability, ...) in light of the use-case requirements documents. The evaluation will be made for IGPs, MANET, DTNs, ... Discussion on the proposed WG charter 1) Use cases Although the number of applications is wide, the objective is to stay very focused with a limited number of use cases from which we will derive the requirements for the routing protocol. Agreement to work on: Industrial, Connected Home, Building. Smart cities is too vague ... And will be removed from the WG charter. Use case will be used to derive routing requirements but the use of the routing protocol (TBD) will of course not be limited to these environments. Applicability statements will document how the routing protocol will be used in other environments. 2) Special attention will be given to routing manageability/self configuration considering the scale at which L2Ns may be deployed ( O(thousands of nodes)) with battery operated nodes, ... 3) Security issues: key work item. Clear consensus to work on a Routing Security Framework for L2Ns (many attacks are L2Ns specific due to the traffic pattern nature, use of wireless links, ...). 4) Interaction with other IETF WGs, Industrial Alliances, SDOs, ... The interaction with the 6lowpan WG is clear: the effort exclusively focuses on the layer 3 routing issues (Route Over) and we will interact with 6lowpan. It is also highly desirable to establish some liaisons with other Industrial alliances (SP100, Zigbee, ...). 5) The WG will work on both v4 and v6, need for unicast and multicast routing. 6) The WG will have to work on whether a centralized/distributed (or both) routing approach is needed and whether routing hierarchy is required. A general comment: let's use the ML a bit more rather than off-line discussions. The new proposed WG charter will be sent to the list very soon for further comments. The new Milestones will of course be aligned with the new proposed WG charter. JP and David.