Subject: Document Action: 'Building Automation Routing Requirements in Low Power and Lossy Networks' to Informational RFC

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:09:49 -0700 (PDT)

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'Building Automation Routing Requirements in Low Power and Lossy 
   Networks '
   <draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-09.txt> as an Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Working Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Ross Callon.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-09.txt

Technical Summary

  The Routing Over Low power and Lossy network (ROLL) Working Group has
  been chartered to work on routing solutions for Low Power and Lossy
  networks (LLN) in various markets: Industrial, Commercial 
  (Building), Home and Urban networks. Pursuant to this effort, this 
  document defines the IPv6 routing requirements for building automation.

  Commercial buildings have been fitted with pneumatic and subsequently
  electronic communication pathways connecting sensors to their 
  controllers for over one hundred years.  Recent economic and technical 
  advances in wireless communication allow facilities to increasingly 
  utilize a wireless solution in lieu of a wired solution; thereby 
  reducing installation costs while maintaining highly reliant 
  communication.

  The cost benefits and ease of installation of wireless sensors allow
  customers to further instrument their facilities with additional 
  sensors; providing tighter control while yielding increased energy 
  savings.

  IPv6 is beoming the accepted technology for use in such environments, 
  but that means that the IP packets must be routed in LLNs. This 
  document examines the specific routing requirements imposed by 
  building automation applications.

Working Group Summary

  No controversy.

Document Quality

  The I-D is informational and specifies IPv6 routing requirements.
  The I-D has been revised to take advantage of the comments made on
  previous ROLL routing requirement drafts.

Personnel

  JP Vasseur is the Document Shepherd.
  Adrian Farrel is the Responsible Area Director.

RFC Editor Note

Section 5.8 - New first paragraph

   This section sets out specific requirements that are placed on any
   protocols that are developed or used in the ROLL building environment
   in order to ensure adequate security and retain suitable flexibility
   of use and function of the protocol.

---

Section 5.8
OLD
   FMS systems are typically highly configurable in the field and hence
   the security policy is most often dictated by the type of building to
   which the FMS is being installed.   Single tenant owner occupied
   office buildings installing lighting or HVAC control are candidates
   for implementing low or even no security on the LLN.  Antithetically,
   military or pharmaceutical facilities require strong security
   policies.  As noted in the installation procedures, security policies
   must be facile to allow for no security policy during the
   installation phase (prior to building occupancy), yet easily raise
   the security level network wide during the commissioning phase of the
   system.
NEW
   FMS systems are typically highly configurable in the field and hence
   the security policy is most often dictated by the type of building to
   which the FMS is being installed.  Single tenant owner occupied
   office buildings installing lighting or HVAC control are candidates
   for implementing a low level of security on the LLN especially when
   the LLN is not connected to an external network.  Antithetically,
   military or pharmaceutical facilities require strong security
   policies.  As noted in the installation procedures described in
   Sections 3.3 and 5.2, security policies MUST support dynamic
   configuration to allow for a low level of security during the
   installation phase (prior to building occupancy when it may be
   appropriate to use only diagnostic levels of security), yet to make
   it possible easily raise the security level network wide during the
   commissioning phase of the system.