Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Thomas' review of draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-02

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 14:41:08 +0000

Hi Thomas,

sorry for the late response and many thanks for your thorough review.
This is indeed an Informational document and as such it does not aim to qualify requirements as MUST or SHOULD. I thought we stated this but maybe we need a better disclaimer.

See inline.

Cheers,
Mehmet

From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Thomas Watteyne
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 9:18 AM
To: opsawg
Subject: [OPSAWG] Thomas' review of draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-02

I was asked to do a detailed review of draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-02.

This is related to my review of draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-use-cases-02, see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg03486.html.

Thomas

GENERAL
---------------

In general, I believe that this is a very useful document to have, and it provides a very clear list of "possible requirements".

As such, it is not a traditional requirement document, as does not list requirements as MUSTs and SHOULDs, but rather gives a clear overview of what those requirements might be. In that sense, I would suggest to not use the term "Requirements" in the title, but maybe "potential requirements".

I imagine that, when the time comes to design a management protocol for constrained devices (CoAP-based RESTCONF?), there will be a "formal" requirements draft for that full of MUSTs and SHOULDs? I would certainly recommend to indicate this clearly in the text.

DETAILED
---------------

please find my comments below, prefixed by "^TW>"

Internet Engineering Task Force                            M. Ersue, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                            Nokia Networks
Intended status: Informational                              D. Romascanu
Expires: January 5, 2015                                           Avaya
                                                        J. Schoenwaelder
                                                Jacobs University Bremen
                                                            July 4, 2014

TW> you could put some newlines in the title

 Management of Networks with Constrained Devices: Problem Statement and
                              Requirements
               draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-02

Abstract

   This document provides a problem statement, deployment and management
   topology options as well as the requirements for the management of
TW> why not simple networks of constrained devices?
ME: We discussed this earlier. “Networks of constrained devices” has been seen as misleading as the network is not limited to constrained devices only.

   networks where constrained devices are involved.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 5, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.3.  Network Types and Characteristics in Focus  . . . . . . .   5
     1.4.  Constrained Device Deployment Options . . . . . . . . . .   9
     1.5.  Management Topology Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     1.6.  Managing the Constrainedness of a Device or Network . . .  10
     1.7.  Configuration and Monitoring Functionality Levels . . . .  13
   2.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   3.  Requirements on the Management of Networks with Constrained
       Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     3.1.  Management Architecture/System  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     3.2.  Management protocols and data model . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     3.3.  Configuration management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     3.4.  Monitoring functionality  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     3.5.  Self-management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     3.6.  Security and Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     3.7.  Energy Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     3.8.  SW Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     3.9.  Traffic management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     3.10. Transport Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
     3.11. Implementation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
   6.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
   7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
   8.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
   Appendix A.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
     A.1.  draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-01 - draft-ietf-
           opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-02  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
     A.2.  draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-00 - draft-ietf-
           opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-01  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
     A.3.  draft-ersue-constrained-mgmt-03 - draft-ietf-opsawg-
           coman-probstate-reqs-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
     A.4.  draft-ersue-constrained-mgmt-02-03  . . . . . . . . . . .  43
     A.5.  draft-ersue-constrained-mgmt-01-02  . . . . . . . . . . .  44
     A.6.  draft-ersue-constrained-mgmt-00-01  . . . . . . . . . . .  45
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

1.  Introduction

1.1.  Overview

   Constrained devices, aka. sensor, smart object, or smart device, with
   limited CPU, memory, and power resources, can constitute a network.
   Such a network of constrained devices itself may be constrained or
   challenged, e.g., with unreliable or lossy channels, wireless
   technologies with limited bandwidth and a dynamic topology, needing
TW> please add energy limitations
ME: OK.

   the service of a gateway or proxy to connect to the Internet.  In
   other scenarios, the constrained devices can be connected to a non-
   constrained network using off-the-shelf protocol stacks.

   Constrained devices might be in charge of gathering information in
   diverse settings including natural ecosystems, buildings, and
TW> factories*,* and
ME: OK
   factories and send the information to one or more server stations.
   Constrained devices may also work under severe resource constraints
   such as limited battery and computing power, little memory and
   insufficient wireless bandwidth, and communication capabilities.  A
   central entity, e.g., a base station or controlling server, might
   have more computational and communication resources and can act as a
   gateway between the constrained devices and the application logic in
   the core network.

   Today diverse size of constrained devices with different resources
   and capabilities are being connected.  Mobile personal gadgets,
   building-automation devices, cellular phones, Machine-to-machine
   (M2M) devices, etc. benefit from interacting with other "things" in
   the near or somewhere in the Internet.  With this the Internet of
TW> reality build -> reality, built
ME: OK

   Things (IoT) becomes a reality build up of uniquely identifiable
   objects (things).  And over the next decade, this could grow to
TW> wow, that's 3 orders of magnitude more than people. I see wild predictions
TW> going to tens of billions, but not thousands. Maybe "billions"?
ME: It’s a huge number in any case.

   trillions of constrained devices and will greatly increase the
   Internet's size and scope.

   Network management is characterized by monitoring network status,
   detecting faults, and inferring their causes, setting network
   parameters, and carrying out actions to remove faults, maintain
   normal operation, and improve network efficiency and application
   performance.  The traditional network monitoring application
   periodically collects information from a set of elements that are
TW> to manage, to process [...] to present
   needed to manage, processes the data, and presents them to the
   network management users.  Constrained devices, however, often have
TW> please specify unreliable. I would say that they may be inter-connected
TW> through unreliable links to one another, and to the Internet
ME: I think in this context it is meant to be “not available continuously”, e.g. bcz of lossy networks or connections.

   limited power, low transmission range, and might be unreliable.  They
   might also need to work in hostile environments with advanced
   security requirements or need to be used in harsh environments for a
   long time without supervision.  Due to such constraints, the
TW> typo type*s*
ME: Actually “the management .. faces” is OK.

   management of a network with constrained devices faces different type
   of challenges compared to the management of a traditional IP network.

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   The IETF has already done substantial standardization work to enable
   the communication in IP networks and to manage such networks as well
   as the manifold type of nodes in these networks [RFC6632].  However,
   the IETF so far has not developed any specific technologies for the
   management of constrained devices and the networks comprised by
   constrained devices.  IP-based sensors or constrained devices in such
   an environment, i.e., devices with very limited memory and CPU
TW> please add energy
ME: OK
TW> use today*'s*
ME: OK

   resources, use today application-layer protocols in an ad-hoc manner
   to do simple resource management and monitoring.

   This document provides a problem statement and lists the requirements
   for the management of a network with constrained devices.
   Section 1.3 and Section 1.5 describe different topology options for
   the networking and management of constrained devices.  Section 2
   provides a problem statement on the issue of the management of
   networked constrained devices.  Section 3 lists requirements on the
   management of applications and networks with constrained devices.
   Note that the requirements listed in Section 3 have been separated
   from the context in which they may appear.
TW> Hmm. poipoi TODO
ME: This is intentional for the current draft.

   Depending on the concrete
   circumstances, an implementer may decide to address a certain
   relevant subset of the requirements.

   The use cases in the context of networks with constrained devices can
   be found in the companion document [COM-USE].

1.2.  Terminology

   Concerning constrained devices and networks this document generally
   builds on the terminology defined in [RFC7228], where the terms
   Constrained Device, Constrained Network, etc. are defined.

   The following terms are additionally used throughout this
   documentation:

   AMI:  (Advanced Metering Infrastructure) A system including hardware,
      software, and networking technologies that measures, collects, and
      analyzes energy usage, and communicates with a hierarchically
      deployed network of metering devices, either on request or on a
      schedule.

   C0:  Class 0 constrained device as defined in Section 3. of
      [RFC7228].

   C1:  Class 1 constrained device as defined in Section 3. of
      [RFC7228].

   C2:  Class 2 constrained device as defined in Section 3. of
      [RFC7228].

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   Network of Constrained Devices:  A network to which constrained
      devices are connected that may or may not be a Constrained Network
      (see [RFC7228] for the definition of the term Constrained
      Network).

   M2M:  (Machine to Machine) stands for the automatic data transfer
      between devices of different kind.  In M2M scenarios a device
      (such as a sensor or meter) captures an event, which is relayed
      through a network (wireless, wired or hybrid) to an application.

   MANET:  Mobile Ad-hoc Networks [RFC2501], a self-configuring and
      infrastructureless network of mobile devices connected by wireless
      technologies.

   Smart Grid:  An electrical grid that uses communication technologies
      to gather and act on information in an automated fashion to
      improve the efficiency, reliability and sustainability of the
      production and distribution of electricity.

   Smart Meter:  An electrical meter in the context of a Smart Grid.

      For a detailed discussion on the constrained networks as well as
      classes of constrained devices and their capabilities please see
      [RFC7228].

1.3.  Network Types and Characteristics in Focus

   In this document we differentiate following types of networks
   concerning their transport and communication technologies:

   (Note that a network in general can involve constrained and non-
   constrained devices.)

   1.  Wireline non-constrained networks, e.g., an Ethernet-LAN with
       constrained and non-constrained devices involved.

   2.  A combination of wireline and wireless networks, possibly with a
       multi-hop connectivity between constrained devices, utilizing
       dynamic routing in both the wireless and wireline portions of the
       network.  Such networks usually support highly distributed
       applications with many nodes (e.g., environmental monitoring) and
       tend to deal with large-scale multipoint-to-point systems.
       Wireless Mesh Networks (WMN), as a specific variant, use off-the-
       shelf radio technology such as Wi-Fi, WiMax, and cellular 3G/4G.
       WMNs are reliable based on the redundancy they offer and have
       often a more planned deployment to provide dynamic and cost
       effective connectivity over a certain geographic area.

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   3.  A combination of wireline and wireless networks with point-to-
       point or point-to-multipoint communication generally with single-
TW> Hmm. The statement that IEEE802.15.4 networks are generally single-hop and
TW> involve static routing contradicts the work done in ROLL and 6LoWPAN, 6lo
TW> and 6TiSCH. Consider removing?
ME: I agree. “Generally” is not appropriate. Can be changed to “mostly” or removed.

       hop connectivity to constrained devices, utilizing static routing
       over the wireless network.  Such networks support short-range,
       point-to-point, low-data-rate, source-to-sink type of
       applications such as RFID systems, light switches, fire and smoke
       detectors, and home appliances.  This type of networks also
       support confined short-range spaces such as a home, a factory, a
       building, or the human body.  IEEE 802.15.1 (Bluetooth) and IEEE
       802.15.4 are well-known examples of applicable standards for such
       networks.

   4.  Self-configuring infrastructureless networks of mobile devices
       (e.g., Mobile Adhoc networks, MANET) are a particular type of
       network connected by wireless technologies.  Infrastructureless
       networks are mostly based on point-to-point communications of
       devices moving independently in any direction and changing the
       links to other devices frequently.  Such devices do act as a
       router to forward traffic unrelated to their own use.

   Wireline non-constrained networks with constrained and non-
   constrained devices are mainly used for specific applications like
   Building Automation or Infrastructure Monitoring.  Wireline and
   wireless networks with multi-hop or point-to-multipoint connectivity
   are used e.g., for environmental monitoring as well as transport and
   mobile applications.
TW> add industrial applications for the latter (e.g. WirelessHART, 6TiSCH)
ME: These are only non-exhaustive examples.

   Furthermore different network characteristics are determined by
   multiple dimensions: dynamicity of the topology, bandwidth, and loss
   rate.  In the following, each dimension is explained, and networks in
   scope for this document are outlined:

TW> I don't quite understand why this draft introduces so many terms,
TW> networking topologies, etc. Can it not simply references a number of RFCs?
TW> RFC5867, RFC5826, RFC5673, RFC5548 seem to give a good overview of LLN
TW> use cases
ME: The RFCs you list focus on a specific network type.

   Network Topology:

   The topology of a network can be represented as a graph, with edges
   (i.e., links) and vertices (routers and hosts).  Examples of
   different topologies include "star" topologies (with one central node
   and multiple nodes in one hop distance), tree structures (with each
   node having exactly one parent), directed acyclic graphs (with each
   node having one or more parents), clustered topologies (where one or
   more "cluster heads" are responsible for a certain area of the
   network), mesh topologies (fully distributed), etc.

   Management protocols may take advantage of specific network
   topologies, for example by distributing large-scale management tasks
   amongst multiple distributed network management stations (e.g., in
TW> wouldn't cluster-based topologies not be a better fit here?
   case of a mesh topology), or by using a hierarchical management
ME: I don’t understand the question. Clustered topologies have been mentioned in the paragraph above.

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   approach (e.g., in case of a tree topology).  These different
   management topology options are described in Section 1.6.

   Note that in certain network deployments, such as community ad hoc
   networks (see the use case "Community Network Applications" in [COM-
   USE]), the topology is not pre-planned, and thus may be unknown for
   management purposes.  In other use cases, such as industrial
   applications (see the use case "Industrial Applications" in [COM-
   USE]), the topology may be designed in advance and therefore taken
   advantage of when managing the network.

   Dynamicity of the network topology:

   The dynamicity of the network topology determines the rate of change
TW> per time -> as a function of time
ME: OK

   of the graph per time.  Such changes can occur due to different
   factors, such as mobility of nodes (e.g., in MANETs or cellular
   networks), duty cycles (for low-power devices enabling their network
   interface only periodically to transmit or receive packets), or
   unstable links (in particular wireless links with strongly
   fluctuating link quality).

   Examples of different levels of dynamicity of the topology are
   Ethernets (with typically a very static topology) on the one side,
   and low-power and lossy networks (LLNs) on the other side.  LLNs
TW> LLN nodes often using duty cycles -> LLN nodes are often duty-cycled
ME: Need to check with the author of this sub-section.

   nodes often using duty cycles, operate on unreliable wireless links
   and are potentially mobile (e.g., for sensor networks).

TW> "The more dynamic the topology is"
ME: OK

   The more the topology is dynamic, the more routing, transport and
   application layer protocols have to cope with interrupted
   connectivity and/or longer delays.  For example, management protocols
   (with a given underlying transport protocol) that expect continuous
   session flows without changes of routes during a communication flow,
   may fail to operate.

   Networks with a very low dynamicity (e.g., Ethernet) with no or
   infrequent topology changes (e.g., less than once every 30 minutes),
   are in-scope of this document if they are used with constrained
   devices (see e.g., the use case "Building Automation" in [COM-USE]).

   Traffic flows:

   The traffic flow in a network determines from which sources data
   traffic is sent to which destinations in the network.  Several
   different traffic flows are defined in [RFC7102], including "point-
   to-point" (P2P), "multipoint-to-point" (MP2P), and "point-to-
   multipoint" (P2MP) flows as:

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

TW> add dashes, i.e. "Point-To-Point"?
ME: OK

   o  P2P: Point To Point.  This refers to traffic exchanged between two
      nodes (regardless of the number of hops between the two nodes).

   o  P2MP: Point-to-Multipoint traffic refers to traffic between one
      node and a set of nodes.  This is similar to the P2MP concept in
      Multicast or MPLS Traffic Engineering.

   o  MP2P: Multipoint-to-Point is used to describe a particular traffic
      pattern (e.g., MP2P flows collecting information from many nodes
      flowing inwards towards a collecting sink).

   If one of these traffic patterns is predominant in a network,
   protocols (routing, transport, application) may be optimized for the
   specific traffic flow.  For example, in a network with a tree
   topology and MP2P traffic, collection tree protocols are efficient to
   send data from the leaves of the tree to the root of the tree, via
   each node's parent.

   Bandwidth:

   The bandwidth of the network is the amount of data that can be sent
TW> per *unit of* time?
ME: OK

   per time between two communication end-points.  It is usually
   determined by the link with the minimum bandwidth on the path from
   the source to the destination of data packets.  The bandwidth in
   networks can range from a few Kilobytes per second (such as on some
   802.15.4 link layers) to many Gigabytes per second (e.g., on fiber
   optics).

   For management purposes, the management protocol typically requires
   to send information between the network management station and the
   clients, for monitoring or control purposes.  If the available
   bandwidth is insufficient for the management protocol, packets will
   be buffered and eventually dropped, and thus management is not
   possible with such a protocol.

   Networks without bandwidth limitation (e.g., Ethernet) are in-scope
   of this document if they are used with constrained devices (see the
   use case "Building Automation" in [COM-USE]).

   Loss rate:

   The loss rate (or bit error rate) is the number of bit errors divided
   by the total number of bits transmitted.  For wired networks, loss
   rates are typically extremely low, e.g., around 10^-12 or 10^-13 for
   the latest 10Gbit Ethernet.  For wireless networks, such as 802.15.4,
   the bit error rate can be as high as 10^-1 to 10^-0 in case of
TW> missing space below
ME: OK

   interferences.Even when using a reliable transport protocol,

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   management operations can fail if the loss rate is too high, unless
   they are specifically designed to cope with these situations.

1.4.  Constrained Device Deployment Options

   We differentiate following deployment options for the constrained
   devices:

   o  A network of constrained devices that communicate with each other,

   o  Constrained devices, which are connected directly to an IP
      network,

   o  A network of constrained devices which communicate with a gateway
      or proxy with more communication capabilities acting possibly as a
      representative of the device to entities in the non-constrained
      network

   o  Constrained devices, which are connected to the Internet or an IP
      network via a gateway/proxy

   o  A hierarchy of constrained devices, e.g., a network of C0 devices
      connected to one or more C1 devices - connected to one or more C2
      devices - connected to one or more gateways - connected to some
      application servers or NMS system

   o  The possibility of device grouping (possibly in a dynamic manner)
      such as that the grouped devices can act as one logical device at
      the edge of the network and one device in this group can act as
      the managing entity

1.5.  Management Topology Options

   We differentiate following options for the management of networks of
   constrained devices:

   o  A network of constrained devices managed by one central manager.
      A logically centralized management might be implemented in a
      hierarchical fashion for scalability and robustness reasons.  The
      manager and the management application logic might have a gateway/
      proxy in between or might be on different nodes in different
      networks, e.g., management application running on a cloud server.

   o  Distributed management, where a network of constrained devices is
      managed by more than one manager.  Each manager controls a
TW> subnet is a very loaded word. Maybe refer to "a portion of the network"?
ME: I think the sentence is consumable.

      subnetwork and may communicate directly with other manager
      stations in a cooperative fashion.  The distributed management may
      be weakly distributed, where functions are broken down and

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

      assigned to many managers dynamically, or strongly distributed,
      where almost all managed things have embedded management
      functionality and explicit management disappears, which usually
      comes with the price that the strongly distributed management
      logic now needs to be managed.

   o  Hierarchical management, where a hierarchy of networks with
      constrained devices are managed by the managers at their
      corresponding hierarchy level.  I.e., each manager is responsible
      for managing the nodes in its sub-network.  It passes information
      from its sub-network to its higher-level manager, and disseminates
      management functions received from the higher-level manager to its
      sub-network.  Hierarchical management is essentially a scalability
      mechanism, logically the decision-making may be still centralized.

poipoipoi

1.6.  Managing the Constrainedness of a Device or Network

   The capabilities of a constrained device or network and the
   constrainedness thereof influence and have an impact on the
   requirements for the management of such network or devices.

   Note that the list below gives examples and does not claim
   completeness.

   A constrained device:

TW> Strictly speaking, the radios are reliable, but the links are lossy
TW> Maybe rephrase to "are connected by radio links which are unreliably in
TW> nature"
ME: Agree. -> unreliable radio links (e.g. lossy links)

   o  might only support an unreliable radio with lossy links, i.e., the
      client and server of a management protocol need to gracefully

TW> In my experience, packet corruption is caught at several layers throughout
TW> the stack, and I doubt it is possible for the management protocol to
TW> receive "incomplete" commands. Maybe I'm missing something.
TW> With unreliable links, I believe the management protocol needs to
TW> gracefully handle changes in latency, timeouts and retransmissions.
ME: I think on each layer the received command might be incomplete.

      ignore incomplete commands or repeat commands as necessary.

   o  might only be able to go online from time-to-time, where it is
      reachable, i.e., a command might be necessary to repeat after a
      longer timeout or the timeout value with which one endpoint waits
      on a response needs to be sufficiently high.

   o  might only be able to support a limited operating time (e.g.,
      based on the available battery), or may behave as 'sleepy
      endpoints' setting their network links to a disconnected state
      during long periods of time i.e., the devices need to economize
      their energy usage with suitable mechanisms and the managing
      entity needs to monitor and control the energy status of the
      constrained devices it manages.

   o  might only be able to support one simple communication protocol,
      i.e., the management protocol needs to be possible to downscale
      from constrained (C2) to very constrained (C0) devices with
      modular implementation and a very basic version with just a few
      simple commands.

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   o  might only be able to support limited or no user and/or transport
      security, i.e., the management system needs to support a less-
      costly and simple but sufficiently secure authentication
      mechanism.

   o  might not be able to support compression and decompression of
      exchanged data based on limited CPU power, i.e., an intermediary
      entity which is capable of data compression should be able to
      communicate with both, devices that support data compression
      (e.g., C2) and devices that do not support data compression (e.g.,
      C1 and C0).

   o  might only be able to support a simple encryption, i.e., it would
      be beneficial if the devices use cryptographic algorithms that are
      supported in hardware and the encryption used is efficient in
TW> typo memeory -> memory
ME: OK

      terms of memeory and CPU usage.

   o  might only be able to communicate with one single managing entity
      and cannot support the parallel access of many managing entities.

   o  might depend on a self-configuration feature, i.e., the managing
      entity might not know all devices in a network and the device
      needs to be able to initiate connection setup for the device
      configuration.

   o  might depend on self- or neighbor-monitoring feature, i.e., the
      managing entity might not be able to monitor all devices in a
      network continuously.

   o  might only be able to communicate with its neighbors, i.e., the
      device should be able to get its configuration from a neighbor.

   o  might only be able to support parsing of data models with limited
      size, i.e., the device data models need to be compact containing
      the most necessary data and if possible parsable as a stream.

   o  might only be able to support a limited or no failure detection,
      i.e., the managing entity needs to handle the situation, where a
      failure does not get detected or gets detected late gracefully
      e.g., with asking repeatedly.

   o  might only be able to support the reporting of just one or a
      limited set failure types.

   o  might only be able to support a limited set of notifications,
      possible only an "I-am-alive" message.

   o  might only be able to support a soft-reset from failure recovery.

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   o  might possibly generate a large amount of redundant reporting
      data, i.e., the intermediary management entity (see [RFC7252])
      should be able to filter and aggregate redundant data.

   A network of constrained devices:

TW> same discussion about the term "unreliable radio" applies here
ME: OK -> unreliable radio links

   o  might only support an unreliable radio with lossy links, i.e., the
      client and server of a management protocol need to repeat commands
      as necessary or gracefully ignore incomplete commands.

   o  might be necessary to manage based on multicast communication,
      i.e., the managing entity needs to be prepared to configure many
      devices at once based on the same data model.

   o  might have a very large topology supporting 10,000 or more nodes
      for some applications and as such node naming is a specific issue
      for constrained networks.

   o  must be able to self-organize, i.e., given the large number of
      nodes and their potential placement in hostile locations and
      frequently changing topology, manual configuration of nodes is
TW> As such*,*
ME: OK

      typically not feasible.  As such the network must be able to
      reconfigure itself so that it can continue to operate properly and
      support reliable connectivity.

   o  needs a management solution that is energy-efficient, using as
      little wireless bandwidth as possible since communication is
      highly energy demanding.

TW> while very important in some cases, this seems not to be the general case.
TW> maybe prefix by "In some cases,"?
ME: OK -> might need . . .

   o  needs to support localization schemes to determine the location of
      devices since the devices might be moving and location information
      is important for some applications.

   o  needs a management solution that is scalable as the network may
      consist of thousands of nodes and may need to be extended
      continuously.

   o  needs to provide fault tolerance.  Faults in network operation
      including hardware and software errors or failures detected by the
TW> I don't understand "should be handled smoothly enabling"
ME: OK DEL< enabling>

      transport protocol should be handled smoothly enabling.  In such a
      case it should be possible to run the protocol possibly at a
      reduced level but avoiding to fail completely.  E.g., self-
      monitoring mechanisms or graceful degradation of features can be
      used to provide fault tolerance.

   o  might require new management capabilities: for example, network
      coverage information and a constrained device power-distribution-
      map.

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   o  might require a new management function for data management, since
      the type and amount of data collected in constrained networks is
      different from those of the traditional networks.

   o  might also need energy-efficient key management.

1.7.  Configuration and Monitoring Functionality Levels

   Devices often differ significantly on the level of configuration
   management support they provide.  This document classifies the
   configuration management functionality as follows:

TW> I have two low-end cases in mind which are believe are commonplace, but
TW> I don't know in which category it fits:
TW> - the device can only bec configured by physically connecting a device to
TW>   it and changing the configuration. This might be a handheld with a serial
TW>   cable.
TW> - the device's configuration is contained in some flash memory card. An
TW>   operate reconfigures a device by swapping its configuration card.
ME: I assume 1st: CL2, 2nd: CL0. There might be different combinations

   CL0:  Devices are pre-configured and allow no runtime configuration
TW> hard coded -> hard-coded?
      changes.  Configuration parameters are often hard coded and
      compiled directly into the firmware image.

   CL1:  Devices have explicit configuration objects.  However, changes
      require a restart of the device to take effect.

   CL2:  Devices allow management systems to replace the entire
      configuration (or pre-determined subsets) in bulk.  Configuration
      changes take effect by soft-restarts of the system (or
      subsystems).

   CL3:  Devices allow management systems to modify configuration
      objects without bulk replacements and changes take effect
      immediately.

   CL4:  Devices support multiple configuration datastores and they
      might distinguish between the currently running and the next
      startup configuration.

   CL5:  Devices support configuration datastore locking and device-
      local configuration change transactions, i.e., either all
      configuration changes are applied or none of them.

   CL6:  Devices support configuration change transactions across
      devices.

   This document defines a classification of devices with regards to
   different levels of monitoring support.  In general a device may be
   in several of the levels listed below:

TW> I have a monitoring use case which I believe to be common, but I
TW> have a hard time seeing to which category it belongs:
TW> - a device logs noteworthy event to a flash drive connected to it. An
TW>   operator collects those, and analyzes those logs, possibly much later.
ME: ML1:

   ML0:  Devices push pre-defined monitoring data.

   ML1:  Devices allow management systems to pull pre-defined monitoring
      data.

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   ML2:  Devices allow management systems to pull user-defined filtered
      subsets of monitoring data.

   ML3:  Devices are able to locally process monitoring data in order to
      detect threshold crossings or to aggregate data.

   At the time of this writing, constrained devices often implement a
   combination of one of CL0-CL2 with one of ML0-ML1.

2.  Problem Statement

   The terminology for the "Internet of Things" is still nascent, and
   depending on the network type or layer in focus diverse technologies
   and terms are in use.  Common to all these considerations is the
   "Things" or "Objects" are supposed to have physical or virtual
   identities using interfaces to communicate.  In this context, we need
   to differentiate between the Constrained and Smart Devices identified
   by an IP address compared to virtual entities such as Smart Objects,
   which can be identified as a resource or a virtual object by using a
   unique identifier.  Furthermore, the smart devices usually have a
   limited memory and CPU power as well as aim to be self-configuring
   and easy to deploy.

   However, the constraints of the network nodes requires a rethinking
   of the protocol characteristics concerning power consumption,
TW> please add network bandwidth
ME: OK

   performance, memory, and CPU usage.  As such, there is a demand for
   protocol simplification, energy-efficient communication, less CPU

TW> small*er*?
ME: OK

   usage and small memory footprint.

   On the application layer the IETF is already developing protocols
   like the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252] enabling
   the communication of constrained devices and networks e.g., for smart
   energy applications or home automation environments.  The deployment
   of such an environment involves in fact many, in some scenarios up to
   million constrained devices (e.g., smart meters), which produce a
   large amount of data.  This data needs to be collected, filtered, and
   pre-processed for further use in diverse services.

TW> think on -> think about?
   Considering the high number of nodes to deploy, one has to think on
   the manageability aspects of the smart devices and plan for easy
   deployment, configuration, and management of the networks of
   constrained devices as well as the devices themselves.  Consequently,
   seamless monitoring and self-configuration of such network nodes
   becomes more and more imperative.  Self-configuration and self-
   management is already a reality in the standards of some of the
   bodies such as 3GPP.  To introduce self-configuration of smart
   devices successfully a device-initiated connection establishment is
   required.

TW> In some cases, the management entity might establish connection with a
TW> joining device during commisionning (i.e. wake-up). I don't have a good
TW> example, and I certainly agree that the devices should establish a
TW> connection in most cases, but I would no sat "is required". Maybe "is often
TW> required"?
ME: OK

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 14]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   A simple and efficient application layer protocol, such as CoAP, is
   essential to address the issue of efficient object-to-object
   communication and information exchange.  Such an information exchange
   should be done based on interoperable data models to enable the
   exchange and interpretation of diverse application and management
   related data.

   In an ideal world, we would have only one network management protocol
   for monitoring, configuration, and exchanging management data,
   independently of the type of the network (e.g., Smart Grid, wireless
   access, or core network).  Furthermore, it would be desirable to
   derive the basic data models for constrained devices from the core
   models used today to enable reuse of functionality and end-to-end
   information exchange.  However, the current management protocols seem
   to be too heavyweight compared to the capabilities the constrained
   devices have and are not applicable directly for the use in a network
   of constrained devices.  Furthermore, the data models addressing the
   requirements of such smart devices need yet to be designed.

   The IETF so far has not developed any specific technologies for the
   management of constrained devices and the networks comprised by
   constrained devices.  IP-based sensors or constrained devices in such
   an environment, i.e., devices with very limited memory and CPU
   resources, use today, e.g., application-layer protocols to do simple
   resource management and monitoring.  This might be sufficient for
   some basic cases, however, there is a need to reconsider the network
   management mechanisms based on the new, changed, as well as reduced
   requirements coming from smart devices and the network of such
   constrained devices.  Albeit it is questionable whether we can take
   the same comprehensive approach we use in an IP network also for the
   management of constrained devices.  Hence, the management of a
   network with constrained devices is necessary to design in a
   simplified and less complex manner.

TW> typo characterists -> characteristics
ME: OK

   As Section 1.6 highlights, there are diverse characterists of
   constrained devices or networks, which stem from their
   constrainedness and therefore have an impact on the requirements for
   the management of such a network with constrained devices.  The use
   cases discussed in [COM-USE] show that the requirements on
   constrained networks are manifold and need to be analyzed from
   different angles, e.g., concerning the design of the management
   architecture, the selection of the appropriate protocol features as
   well as the specific issues which are new in the context of
   constrained devices.  Examples of such issues are e.g., the careful
   management of the scarce energy resources, the necessity for self-
   organization and self-management of such devices but also the
   implementation considerations to enable the use of common
   communication technologies on a constrained hardware in an efficient

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 15]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   manner.  For an exhaustive list of issues and requirements that need
   to be addressed for the management of a network with constrained
   devices please see Section 1.6 and Section 3.

3.  Requirements on the Management of Networks with Constrained Devices

   This section describes the requirements categorized by management
   areas listed in subsections.

   Note that the requirements listed in this section have been separated
   from the context in which they may appear.  This document in general
   does not recommend the realization of any subset of the described
   requirements.  As such this document avoids selecting any of the
   requirements as mandatory to implement.  A device might be able to
   provide only a particular selected set of requirements and might not
   be capable to provide all requirements in this document.  On the
   other hand a device vendor might select a specific relevant subset of
   the requirements to implement.

TW> *The* following?
ME: OK

   Following template is used for the definition of the requirements.

TW> "An ID uniquely identified" reads strange. Rephrase to "A unique 3-digit
TW> identifier"?
ME: OK

   Req-ID:  An ID uniquely identified by a three-digit number

   Title:  The title of the requirement.

   Description:  The rational and description of the requirement.

   Source:  The origin of the requirement and the matching use case or
      application.  For the discussion of referred use cases for
      constrained management please see [COM-USE].

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement, Non-Functional
      Requirement.  A functional requirement is related to a function or
      component.  As such functional requirements may be technical
      details, or specific functionality that define what a system is
      supposed to accomplish.  Non-functional requirements (also known
      as design constraints or quality requirements) impose
TW> implementation-related?
ME: OK

      implementation related considerations such as performance
      requirements, security, or reliability.

TW> please add RFC reference
ME: OK

   Device type:  The device types by which this requirement can be
      supported: C0, C1 and/or C2.

TW> I'm a bit surprised the priority depends on the class of device. In my mind
TW> some requirement are of high priority because they are really needed.
TW> Whether it's implemented on a C0 or C2 shouldn't matter. At the most, some
TW> requirements cannot be satisfied by low-end devices.
ME: We were thinking, if the device is capable you can state a high priority but not otherwise.

   Priority:  The priority of the requirement showing its importance for
      a particular type of device: High, Medium, and Low. The priority
      of a requirement can be High e.g., for a C2 device but Low for a
      C1 or C0 device as the realization of complex features in a C1
      device is in many cases not possible.

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 16]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

3.1.  Management Architecture/System

   Req-ID:  1.001

   Title:  Support multiple device classes within a single network.

   Description:  Larger networks usually consist of devices belonging to
      different device classes (e.g., constrained mesh endpoints and
      less constrained routers) communicating with each other.  Hence,
      the management architecture must be applicable to networks that
      have a mix of different device classes.  See Section 3. of
      [RFC7228] for the definition of Constrained Device Classes.

   Source:  All use cases.

   Requirement Type:  Non-Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C1 and/or C2

   Priority:  High

   ---

   Req-ID:  1.002

   Title:  Management scalability.

   Description:  The management architecture must be able to scale with
      the number of devices involved and operate efficiently in any
      network size and topology.  This implies that e.g., the managing
      entity is able to handle large amounts of device monitoring data
      and the management protocol is not sensitive to the decrease of
      the time between two client requests.  To achieve good
      scalability, caching techniques, in-network data aggregation
      techniques, hierarchical management models may be used.

   Source:  General requirement for all use cases to enable large scale
      networks.

   Requirement Type:  Non-Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  High

   ---

   Req-ID:  1.003

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 17]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   Title:  Hierarchical management

   Description:  Provide a means of hierarchical management, i.e.,
      provide intermediary management entities on different levels,
      which can take over the responsibility for the management of a
      sub-hierarchy of the network of constraint devices.  The
      intermediary management entity can e.g., support management data
      aggregation to handle e.g., high-frequent monitoring data or
TW> RFC6550 uses the terms "upward" and "downward". Maybe use those here too?
ME: But many other use uplink/downlink.

            provide a caching mechanism for the uplink and downlink
      communication.  Hierarchical management contributes to management
      scalability.

   Source:  Use cases where a large amount of devices are deployed with
      a hierarchical topology.

   Requirement Type:  Non-Functional Requirement

   Device type:  Managing and intermediary entities.

   Priority:  Medium

   ---

   Req-ID:  1.004

   Title:  Minimize state maintained on constrained devices.

   Description:  The amount of state that needs to be maintained on
      constrained devices should be minimized.  This is important in
      order to save memory (especially relevant for C0 and C1 devices)
      and in order to allow devices to restart for example to apply
      configuration changes or to recover from extended periods of
      inactivity.

   Note:  One way to achieve this is to adopt a RESTful architecture
      that minimizes the amount of state maintained by managed
      constrained devices and that makes resources of a device
      addressable via URIs.

   Source:  Basic requirement which concerns all use cases.

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  High

   ---

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 18]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   Req-ID:  1.005

   Title:  Automatic re-synchronization with eventual consistency.

   Description:  To support large scale networks, where some constrained
      devices may be offline at any point in time, it is necessary to
      distribute configuration parameters in a way that allows temporary
      inconsistencies but eventually converges, after a sufficiently
      long period of time without further changes, towards global
      consistency.

   Source:  Use cases with large scale networks with many devices.

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  High

   ---

   Req-ID:  1.006

   Title:  Support for lossy links and unreachable devices.

   Description:  Some constrained devices will only be able to support
      lossy and unreliable links characterized by a limited data rate, a
TW> Furthermore*,*
ME: OK

      high latency, and a high transmission error rate.  Furthermore
      constrained devices often duty cycle their radio or the whole
TW> labelled -> labeled
ME: OK

      device in order to save energy.  Some classes of devices labelled
      as 'sleepy endpoints' set their network links to a disconnected
      state during long periods of time.  In all cases the management
      system must not assume that constrained devices are always
      reachable.

   Source:  Basic requirement for networks of constrained devices with
      unreliable links and constrained devices that sleep to save
      energy.

   Requirement Type:  Non-Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  High

   ---

   Req-ID:  1.007

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 19]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   Title:  Network-wide configuration

   Description:  Provide means by which the behavior of the network can
      be specified at a level of abstraction (network-wide
      configuration) higher than a set of configuration information
      specific to individual devices.  It is useful to derive the device
      specific configuration from the network-wide configuration.  Such
      a repository can be used to configure pre-defined device or
      protocol parameters for the whole network.  Furthermore, such a
      network-wide view can be used to monitor and manage a group of
      routers or a whole network.  E.g., monitoring the performance of a
      network requires additional information other than what can be
      acquired from a single router using a management protocol.

   Note:  The identification of the relevant subset of the policies to
      be provisioned is according to the capabilities of each device and
      can be obtained from a pre-configured data-repository.

   Source:  In general all use cases of network and device configuration
      based on a network view in a top-down manner.

   Requirement Type:  Non-Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  Medium

   ---

   Req-ID:  1.008

   Title:  Distributed Management

   Description:  Provide a means of simple distributed management, where
      a network of constrained devices can be managed or monitored by
      more than one manager.  Since the connectivity to a server cannot
      be guaranteed at all times, a distributed approach may provide a
      higher reliability, at the cost of increased complexity.  This
      requirement implies the handling of data consistency in case of
      concurrent read and write access to the device datastore.  It
      might also happen that no management (configuration) server is
      accessible and the only reachable node is a peer device.  In this
      case the device should be able to obtain its configuration from
      peer devices.

   Source:  Use cases where the count of devices to manage is high.

   Requirement Type:  Non-Functional Requirement

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 20]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   Device type:  C1 and C2

   Priority:  Medium

3.2.  Management protocols and data model

   Req-ID:  2.001

   Title:  Modular implementation of management protocols

   Description:  Management protocols should be specified to allow for
      modular implementations, i.e., it should be possible to implement
      only a basic set of protocol primitives on highly constrained
      devices while devices with additional resources may provide more
      support for additional protocol primitives.  See Section 1.7 for a
      discussion on the level of configuration management and monitoring
      support constrained devices may provide.

   Source:  Basic requirement interesting for all use cases.

   Requirement Type:  Non-Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  High

   ---

   Req-ID:  2.002

   Title:  Compact encoding of management data

   Description:  The encoding of management data should be compact and
      space efficient, enabling small message sizes.

   Source:  General requirement to save memory for the receiver buffer
      and on-air bandwidth.

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  High

   ---

   Req-ID:  2.003

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 21]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   Title:  Compression of management data or complete messages

   Description:  Management data exchanges can be further optimized by
      applying data compression techniques or delta encoding techniques.
      Compression typically requires additional code size and some
      additional buffers and/or the maintenance of some additional state
      information.  For C0 devices compression may not be feasible.

   Source:  Use cases where it is beneficial to reduce transmission time
      and bandwidth, e.g., mobile applications which require to save on-
      air bandwidth.

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C1 and C2

   Priority:  Medium

   ---

   Req-ID:  2.004

   Title:  Mapping of management protocol interactions.

   Description:  It is desirable to have a loss-less automated mapping
      between the management protocol used to manage constrained devices
      and the management protocols used to manage regular devices.  In
      the ideal case, the same core management protocol can be used with
      certain restrictions taking into account the resource limitations
      of constrained devices.  However, for very resource constrained
      devices, this goal might not be achievable.

   Source:  Use cases where high-frequent interaction with the
      management system of a non-constrained network is required.

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C1 and C2

   Priority:  Medium

   ---

   Req-ID:  2.005

   Title:  Consistency of data models with the underlying information
      model.

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 22]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   Description:  The data models used by the management protocol must be
      consistent with the information model used to define data models
      for non-constrained networks.  This is essential to facilitate the
      integration of the management of constrained networks with the
      management of non-constrained networks.  Using an underlying
      information model for future data model design enables furthermore
      top-down model design and model reuse as well as data
      interoperability (i.e., exchange of management information between
      the constrained and non-constrained networks).  This is a strong
      requirement, even despite the fact that the underlying information
      models are often not explicitly documented in the IETF.

   Source:  General requirement to support data interoperability,
      consistency and model reuse.

   Requirement Type:  Non-Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  High

   ---

   Req-ID:  2.006
TW> I believe "Lossless" can be a single word
ME: OK

   Title:  Loss-less mapping of management data models.

   Description:  It is desirable to have a loss-less automated mapping
      between the management data models used to manage regular devices
      and the management data models used for managing constrained
      devices.  In the ideal case, the same core data models can be used
      with certain restrictions taking into account the resource
      limitations of constrained devices.  However, for very resource
      constrained devices, this goal might not be achievable.

   Source:  Use cases where consistent data exchange with the management
      system of a non-constrained network is required.

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C2

   Priority:  Medium

   ---

   Req-ID:  2.007

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 23]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   Title:  Protocol extensibility

   Description:  Provide means of extensibility for the management
      protocol, i.e., by adding new protocol messages or mechanisms that
TW> deal with the changing requirements -> deal with changing requirements
ME: OK

      can deal with the changing requirements on a supported message and
TW> inter-operability -> interoperability
ME: OK

      data types effectively, without causing inter-operability problems
      or having to replace/update large amount of deployed devices.

   Source:  Basic requirement useful for all use cases.

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  High

3.3.  Configuration management

   Req-ID:  3.001

   Title:  Self-configuration capability

   Description:  Automatic configuration and re-configuration of devices
      without manual intervention.  Compared to the traditional
      management of devices where the management application is the
      central entity configuring the devices, in the auto-configuration
      scenario the device is the active part and initiates the
      configuration process.  Self-configuration can be initiated during
      the initial configuration or for subsequent configurations, where
      the configuration data needs to be refreshed.  Self-configuration
      should be also supported during the initialization phase or in the
      event of failures, where prior knowledge of the network topology
      is not available or the topology of the network is uncertain.

   Source:  In general all use cases requiring easy deployment and
      plug&play behavior as well as easy maintenance of many constrained
      devices.

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  High for device categories C0 and C1, Medium for C2.

   ---

   Req-ID:  3.002

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 24]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   Title:  Capability Discovery

   Description:  Enable the discovery of supported optional management
      capabilities of a device and their exposure via at least one
      protocol and/or data model.

   Source:  Use cases where the device interaction with other devices or
      applications is a function of the level of support for its
      capabilities.

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C1 and C2

   Priority:  Medium

   ---

   Req-ID:  3.003

   Title:  Asynchronous Transaction Support

   Description:  Provide configuration management with asynchronous
      (event-driven) transaction support.  Configuration operations must
      support a transactional model, with asynchronous indications that
      the transaction was completed.

   Source:  Use cases that require transaction-oriented processing
      because of reliability or distributed architecture functional
      requirements.

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C1 and C2

   Priority:  Medium

   ---

   Req-ID:  3.004

   Title:  Network reconfiguration

   Description:  Provide a means of iterative network reconfiguration in
TW> did you mean "fault" or "failure"?
ME: It should be failure.

      order to recover the network from node and communication faults.
      The network reconfiguration can be failure-driven and self-
      initiated (automatic reconfiguration).  The network

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 25]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

      reconfiguration can be also performed on the whole hierarchical
      structure of a network (network topology).

   Source:  Practically all use cases, as network connectivity is a
      basic requirement.

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  Medium

3.4.  Monitoring functionality

   Req-ID:  4.001

   Title:  Device status monitoring

   Description:  Provide a monitoring function to collect and expose
      information about device status and exposing it via at least one
      management interface.  The device monitoring might make use of the
      hierarchical management through the intermediary entities and the
      caching mechanism.  The device monitoring might also make use of
      neighbor-monitoring (fault detection in local network) to support
      fast fault detection and recovery, e.g., in a scenario where a
      managing entity is unreachable and a neighbor can take over the
      monitoring responsibility.

   Source:  All use cases

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  High, Medium for neighbor-monitoring.

   ---

   Req-ID:  4.002

   Title:  Energy status monitoring

   Description:  Provide a monitoring function to collect and expose
      information about device energy parameters and usage (e.g.,
TW> I would suggest to replace "communication power" by "average power
TW> consumption"
ME: But the power consumption has to do with the communication. -> communication power consumption

      battery level and communication power).

   Source:  Use case Energy Management

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 26]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  High for energy reporting devices, Low for others.

   ---

   Req-ID:  4.003

   Title:  Monitoring of current and estimated device availability

   Description:  Provide a monitoring function to collect and expose
      information about current device availability (energy, memory,
      computing power, forwarding plane utilization, queue buffers,
      etc.) and estimation of remaining available resources.

   Source:  All use cases.  Note that monitoring energy resources (like
      battery status) may be required on all kinds of devices.

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  Medium

   ---

   Req-ID:  4.004

   Title:  Network status monitoring

TW> typo analyse -> analyze
ME: OK

   Description:  Provide a monitoring function to collect, analyse and
      expose information related to the status of a network or network
      segments connected to the interface of the device.

   Source:  All use cases.

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C1 and C2

   Priority:  Low, based on the realization complexity.

   ---

   Req-ID:  4.005

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 27]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   Title:  Self-monitoring

   Description:  Provide self-monitoring (local fault detection) feature
      for fast fault detection and recovery.

   Source:  Use cases where the devices cannot be monitored centrally in
      appropriate manner, e.g., self-healing is required.

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C1 and C2

   Priority:  High for C2, Medium for C1

   ---

   Req-ID:  4.006

   Title:  Performance Monitoring

   Description:  The device will provide a monitoring function to
      collect and expose information about the basic performance
      parameter of the device.  The performance management functionality
      might make use of the hierarchical management through the
      intermediary devices.

   Source:  Use cases Building automation, and Transport applications

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C1 and C2

   Priority:  Low

   ---

   Req-ID:  4.007

   Title:  Fault detection monitoring

   Description:  The device will provide fault detection monitoring.
      The system collects information about network states in order to
      identify whether faults have occurred.  In some cases the
      detection of the faults might be based on the processing and
      analysis of the parameters retrieved from the network or other
      devices.  In case of C0 devices the monitoring might be limited to
      the check whether the device is alive or not.

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 28]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   Source:  Use cases Environmental Monitoring, Building Automation,
      Energy Management, Infrastructure Monitoring

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1 and C2

   Priority:  Medium

   ---

   Req-ID:  4.008

   Title:  Passive and Reactive Monitoring

   Description:  The device will provide passive and reactive monitoring
      capabilities.  The system or manager collects information about
      device components and network states (passive monitoring) and may
      perform postmortem analysis of collected data.  In case events of
      interest have occurred the system or manager can adaptively react
      (reactive monitoring), e.g., reconfigure the network.  Typically
      actions (re-actions) will be executed or sent as commands by the
      management applications.

   Source:  Diverse use cases relevant for device status and network
      state monitoring

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C2

   Priority:  Medium

   ---

   Req-ID:  4.009

   Title:  Recovery

   Description:  Provide local, central and hierarchical recovery
      mechanisms (recovery is in some cases achieved by recovering the
      whole network of constrained devices).

   Source:  Use cases Industrial applications, Home and Building
      Automation, Mobile Applications that involve different forms of
      clustering or area managers.

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 29]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   Device type:  C2

   Priority:  Medium

   ---

   Req-ID:  4.010

   Title:  Network topology discovery

   Description:  Provide a network topology discovery capability (e.g.,
      use of topology extraction algorithms to retrieve the network
      state) and a monitoring function to collect and expose information
      about the network topology.

   Source:  Use cases Community Network Applications and Mobile
      Applications

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C1 and C2

   Priority:  Low, based on the realization complexity.

   ---

   Req-ID:  4.011

   Title:  Notifications

   Description:  The device will provide the capability of sending
      notifications on critical events and faults.

   Source:  All use cases.

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  Medium for C2, Low for C0 and C1

   ---

   Req-ID:  4.012

   Title:  Logging

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 30]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   Description:  The device will provide the capability of building,
      keeping, and allowing retrieval of logs of events (including but
      not limited to critical faults and alarms).

   Source:  Use cases Industrial Applications, Building Automation,
      Infrastructure monitoring

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C2

   Priority:  High for some medical or industrial applications, Medium
      otherwise

3.5.  Self-management

   Req-ID:  5.001

   Title:  Self-management - Self-healing

   Description:  Enable event-driven and/or periodic self-management
      functionality in a device.  The device should be able to react in
      case of a failure e.g., by initiating a fully or partly reset and
      initiate a self-configuration or management data update as
      necessary.  A device might be further able to check for failures
      cyclically or schedule-controlled to trigger self-management as
      necessary.  It is a matter of device design and subject for
      discussion how much self-management a C1 device can support.  A
      minimal failure detection and self-management logic is assumed to
      be generally useful for the self-healing of a device.

   Source:  The requirement generally relates to all use cases in this
      document.

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C1 and C2

   Priority:  High for C2, Medium for C1

3.6.  Security and Access Control

   Req-ID:  6.001

   Title:  Authentication of management system and devices.

   Description:  Systems having a management role must be properly
      authenticated to the device such that the device can exercise

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 31]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

      proper access control and in particular distinguish rightful
      management systems from rogue systems.  On the other hand managed
      devices must authenticate themselves to systems having a
      management role such that management systems can protect
      themselves from rogue devices.  In certain application scenarios,
      it is possible that a large number of devices need to be
      (re)started at about the same time.  Protocols and authentication
      systems should be designed such that a large number of devices
      (re)starting simultaneously does not negatively impact the device
      authentication process.

   Source:  Basic security requirement for all use cases.

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  High, Medium for the (re)start of a large number of
      devices

   ---

   Req-ID:  6.002

   Title:  Support suitable security bootstrapping mechanisms

   Description:  Mechanisms should be supported that simplify the
      bootstrapping of device that is the discovery of newly deployed
      devices in order to provide them with appropriate access control
      permissions.

   Source:  Basic security requirement for all use cases.

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  High

   ---

TW> in some cases, different entities should have access to different sets of
TW> resources. This is not captured in the text below.
ME: This is actually in the nature of Access Control and does not need to be described.
Different entities may have access to different objects and/or sets of objects.

   Req-ID:  6.003

   Title:  Access control on management system and devices

   Description:  Systems acting in a management role must provide an
      access control mechanism that allows the security administrator to
      restrict which devices can access the managing system (e.g., using

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 32]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

      an access control white list of known devices).  On the other hand
      managed constrained devices must provide an access control
      mechanism that allows the security administrator to restrict how
      systems in a management role can access the device (e.g., no-
      access, read-only access, and read-write access).

   Source:  Basic security requirement for use cases where access
      control is essential.

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  High

   ---

   Req-ID:  6.004

   Title:  Select cryptographic algorithms that are efficient in both
      code space and execution time.

   Description:  Cryptographic algorithms have a major impact in terms
      of both code size and overall execution time.  It is therefore
      necessary to select mandatory to implement cryptographic
      algorithms that are reasonable to implement with the available
      code space and that have a small impact at runtime.  Furthermore
      some wireless technologies (e.g., IEEE 802.15.4) require the
      support of certain cryptographic algorithms.  It might be useful
      to choose algorithms that are likely to be supported in wireless
      chipsets for certain wireless technologies.

   Source:  Generic requirement to reduce the footprint and CPU usage of
      a constrained device.

   Requirement Type:  Non-Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  High, Medium for hardware-supported algorithms.

3.7.  Energy Management

   Req-ID:  7.001

   Title:  Management of Energy Resources

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 33]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   Description:  Enable managing power resources in the network, e.g.,
      reduce the sampling rate of nodes with critical battery and reduce
      node transmission power, put nodes to sleep, put single interfaces
      to sleep, reject a management job based on available energy,
      criteria e.g., importance levels pre-defined by the management
      application, etc. (e.g., a task marked as essential can be
      executed even if the energy level is low).  The device may further
      implement standard data models for energy management and expose it
      through a management protocol interface, e.g., EMAN MIB modules
      and extensions (work ongoing).  It might be necessary to use a
      subset of EMAN MIBs for C1 and C2 devices.

   Source:  Use case Energy Management

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  Medium for the use case Energy Management, Low otherwise.

   ---

   Req-ID:  7.002

   Title:  Support of energy-optimized communication protocols

   Description:  Use of an optimized communication protocol to minimize
      energy usage for the device (radio) receiver/transmitter, on-air
      bandwidth (protocol efficiency), reduced amount of data
      communication between nodes (implies data aggregation and
      filtering but also a compact format for the transferred data).

   Source:  Use cases Energy Management and Mobile Applications.

   Requirement Type:  Non-Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C2

   Priority:  Medium

   ---

   Req-ID:  7.003

   Title:  Support for layer 2 energy-aware protocols

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 34]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   Description:  The device will support layer 2 energy management
      protocols (e.g., energy-efficient Ethernet IEEE 802.3az) and be
      able to report on these.

   Source:  Use case Energy Management

   Requirement Type:  Non-Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  Medium

   ---

   Req-ID:  7.004

   Title:  Dying gasp

   Description:  When energy resources draw below the red line level,
      the device will send a dying gasp notification and perform if
      still possible a graceful shutdown including conservation of
      critical device configuration and status information.

   Source:  Use case Energy Management

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  Medium

3.8.  SW Distribution

   Req-ID:  8.001

   Title:  Group-based provisioning

   Description:  Support group-based provisioning, i.e., firmware update
      and configuration management, of a large set of constrained
      devices with eventual consistency and coordinated reload times.
      The device should accept group-based configuration management
      based on bulk commands, which aim similar configurations of a
      large set of constrained devices of the same type in a given
      group, and which may share a common data model.  Activation of
      configuration may be based on pre-loaded sets of default values.

   Source:  All use cases

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 35]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   Requirement Type:  Non-Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  Medium

3.9.  Traffic management

   Req-ID:  9.001

   Title:  Congestion avoidance

   Description:  Support congestion control principles as defined in
      [RFC2914], e.g., the ability to avoid congestion by modifying the
      device's reporting rate for periodical data (which is usually
      redundant) based on the importance and reliability level of the
      management data.  This functionality is usually controlled by the
      managing entity, where the managing entity marks the data as
TW> However*,* reducing
ME: OK

      important or relevant for reliability.  However reducing a
      device's reporting rate can also be initiated by a device if it is
      able to detect congestion or has insufficient buffer memory.

   Source:  Use cases with high reporting rate and traffic e.g., AMI or
      M2M.

   Requirement Type:  Non-Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C1 and C2

   Priority:  Medium

   ---

   Req-ID:  9.002

   Title:  Reroute traffic

   Description:  Provide the ability for network nodes to redirect
      traffic from overloaded intermediary nodes in a network to another
      path in order to prevent congestion on a central server and in the
      primary network.

   Source:  Use cases with high reporting rate and traffic e.g., AMI or
      M2M.

   Requirement Type:  Non-Functional Requirement

   Device type:  Intermediary entity in the network.

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 36]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   Priority:  Medium

   ---

   Req-ID:  9.003

   Title:  Traffic Shaping.

   Description:  Provide the ability to apply traffic shaping policies
      to incoming and outgoing links on an overloaded intermediary node
      as necessary in order to reduce the amount of traffic in the
      network.

   Source:  Use cases with high reporting rate and traffic e.g., AMI or
      M2M.

   Requirement Type:  Non-Functional Requirement

   Device type:  Intermediary entity in the network.

   Priority:  Medium

3.10.  Transport Layer

   Req-ID:  10.001

   Title:  Scalable transport layer

   Description:  Enable the use of a scalable transport layer, i.e., not
      sensitive to a high rate of incoming client requests, which is
      useful for applications requiring frequent access to device data.

   Source:  Applications with high frequent access to the device data.

   Requirement Type:  Non-Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1 and C2

   Priority:  Medium

   ---

   Req-ID:  10.002

   Title:  Reliable unicast transport of messages

   Description:  Diverse applications need a reliable transport of
      messages.  The reliability might be achieved based on a transport

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 37]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

      protocol such as TCP or can be supported based on message
TW> acknowledgement -> acknowledgment
ME: OK

      repetition if an acknowledgement is missing.

   Source:  Generally applications benefit from the reliability of the
      message transport.

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  High

   ---

   Req-ID:  10.003

   Title:  Best-effort multicast

   Description:  Provide best-effort multicast of messages, which is
      generally useful when devices need to discover a service provided
      by a server or many devices need to be configured by a managing
      entity at once based on the same data model.

   Source:  Use cases where a device needs to discover services as well
      as use cases with high amount of devices to manage, which are
      hierarchically deployed, e.g., AMI or M2M.

   Requirement Type:  Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  Medium

   ---

   Req-ID:  10.004

   Title:  Secure message transport.

   Description:  Enable secure message transport providing
      authentication, data integrity, confidentiality by using existing
      transport layer technologies with small footprint such as TLS/
      DTLS.

   Source:  All use cases.

   Requirement Type:  Non-Functional Requirements

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 38]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   Device type:  C1 and C2

   Priority:  High

3.11.  Implementation Requirements

   Req-ID:  11.001

   Title:  Avoid complex application layer transactions requiring large
      application layer messages.

   Description:  Complex application layer transactions tend to require
      large memory buffers that are typically not available on C0 or C1
      devices and only by limiting functionality on C2 devices.
      Furthermore, the failure of a single large transaction requires
      repeating the whole transaction.  On constrained devices, it is
TW> "to a large transaction down" verb missing?
ME: -> “to split large transactions into a . . . “

      often more desirable to a large transaction down into a sequence
      of smaller transactions that require less resources and allow to
      make progress using a sequence of smaller steps.

   Source:  Basic requirement which concerns all use cases with memory
      constrained devices.

   Requirement Type:  Non-Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  High

   ---

   Req-ID:  11.002

   Title:  Avoid reassembly of messages at multiple layers in the
      protocol stack.

   Description:  Reassembly of messages at multiple layers in the
      protocol stack requires buffers at multiple layers, which leads to
      inefficient use of memory resources.  This can be avoided by
      making sure the application layer, the security layer, the
      transport layer, the IPv6 layer and any adaptation layers are
      aware of the limitations of each other such that unnecessary
      fragmentation and reassembly can be avoided.  In addition, message
      size constraints must be announced to protocol peers such that
      they can adapt and avoid sending messages that can't be processed
      due to resource constraints on the receiving device.

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 39]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   Source:  Basic requirement which concerns all use cases with memory
      constrained devices.

   Requirement Type:  Non-Functional Requirement

   Device type:  C0, C1, and C2

   Priority:  High

4.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not introduce any new code-points or namespaces
   for registration with IANA.

   Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
   RFC.

5.  Security Considerations

   This document discusses the problem statement and requirements on
   networks of constrained devices.  Section 1.6 mentions a number of
   limitations that could prevent the implementation of strong
   cryptographic algorithms.  Requirements for security and access
   control are listed in Section 3.6.

   Constrained devices might be deployed often in unsafe environments,
   where attackers can gain physical access to the devices.  As a
   consequence, it is crucial to properly protect any security
   credentials that may be stored on the device (e.g., by using hardware
   protection mechanisms).  Furthermore, it is important that any
TW> leeking -> leaking
ME: OK

   credentials leeking from a single device do not simplify the attack
   on other (similar) devices.  In particular, security credentials
   should never be shared.

   Since constrained devices often have limited computational resources,
   care should be taken in choosing efficient but cryptographically
TW> crytographic -> cryptographic
ME: OK

   strong crytographic algorithms.  Designers of constrained devices
   that have a long expected lifetime need to ensure that cryptographic
   algorithms can be updated once devices have been deployed.  The
   ability to perform secure firmware and software updates is an
   important management requirement.

   Constrained devices might also generate sensitive data or require the
   processing of sensitive data.  It is therefore an important
   requirement to properly protect access to the data in order to
   protect the privacy of humans using Internet-enabled devices.  For
   certain types of data, protection during the transmission over the
   network may not be sufficient and methods should be investigated that

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 40]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

   provide protection of data while it is cached or stored (e.g., when
   using a store-and-forward transport mechanism).

6.  Contributors

   Ulrich Herberg (Fujitsu Laboratories of America) contributed to the
   Section 1.3 on Networks Types and Characteristics in Focus.

7.  Acknowledgments

   Following persons reviewed and provided valuable comments to
   different versions of this document:

   Dominique Barthel, Andy Bierman, Carsten Bormann, Zhen Cao, Benoit
   Claise, Hui Deng, Bert Greevenbosch, Ulrich Herberg, James Nguyen,
   Anuj Sehgal, Zach Shelby, Peter van der Stok and Bert Wijnen.

   The editors would like to thank the reviewers and the participants on
   the Coman and OPSAWG mailing lists for their valuable contributions
   and comments.

8.  Informative References

   [RFC2914]  Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41, RFC
              2914, September 2000.

   [RFC2501]  Corson, M. and J. Macker, "Mobile Ad hoc Networking
              (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and
              Evaluation Considerations", RFC 2501, January 1999.

   [RFC6632]  Ersue, M. and B. Claise, "An Overview of the IETF Network
              Management Standards", RFC 6632, June 2012.

   [RFC7102]  Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and
              Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, January 2014.

   [RFC7228]  Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
              Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228, May 2014.

   [RFC7252]  Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252, June 2014.

   [COM-USE]  Ersue, M., "Constrained Management: Use Cases", draft-
              ietf-opsawg-coman-use-cases (work in progress), October
              2013.

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 41]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

Appendix A.  Change Log

A.1.  draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-01 - draft-ietf-opsawg-
      coman-probstate-reqs-02

   o  General bug fixing.

   o  Resolved the use of the term profile of requirements.

   o  Changed requirement title from Redirect traffic to Reroute traffic
      and the description accordingly.

   o  Changed requirement title from Traffic delay schemes to Traffic
      Shaping and the description accordingly.

   o  Extended Security Considerations section.

   o  Deleted empty section on Normative References.

A.2.  draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-00 - draft-ietf-opsawg-
      coman-probstate-reqs-01

   o  General bug fixing.

   o  Added Section 1.7. on Configuration and Monitoring Functionality
      Levels.

   o  Changed diverse occurences of "networks" to "networks with/of
      constrained devices".

   o  Introduced the term "Self-configuring infrastructureless networks"
      instead of MANET as it is a superset.

   o  Introduced the term 'sleepy endpoints'.

   o  Changed requirement IDs to be independent of section number.

   o  Introduced notes for parts of the requirements text if it is
      focusing on implementation or solution.

   o  Extended Security Considerations section.

   o  Deleted Appendix A and B on other SDO's work and related projects
      as they provided dynamic information and couldn't be kept up-to-
      date.

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 42]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

A.3.  draft-ersue-constrained-mgmt-03 - draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-
      probstate-reqs-00

   o  Reduced the terminology section for terminology addressed in the
      LWIG terminology draft.  Referenced the LWIG terminology draft.

   o  Checked and aligned all terminology against the LWIG terminology
      draft.

   o  Moved section 1.4.  Constrained Device Deployment Options and
      section 3.  Use Cases to the companion document [COM-USE].

   o  Renamed Section 1.3.  Class of Networks in Focus to "Network Types
      in Focus" and removed abbreviations C0, C1 and C2 for network
      classes as they have not been used.

   o  Changed requirement priority classes to be High, Medium and Low.

   o  Changed requirement types to be Functional and Non-Functional and
      added text to explain the requirement types.

   o  Reformulation of some text parts for more clarity.

A.4.  draft-ersue-constrained-mgmt-02-03

   o  Extended the terminology section and removed some of the
      terminology addressed in the new LWIG terminology draft.
      Referenced the LWIG terminology draft.

   o  Moved Section 1.3. on Constrained Device Classes to the new LWIG
      terminology draft.

   o  Class of networks considering the different type of radio and
      communication technologies in use and dimensions extended.

   o  Extended the Problem Statement in Section 2. following the
      requirements listed in Section 4.

   o  Following requirements, which belong together and can be realized
      with similar or same kind of solutions, have been merged.

      *  Distributed Management and Peer Configuration,

      *  Device status monitoring and Neighbor-monitoring,

      *  Passive Monitoring and Reactive Monitoring,

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 43]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

      *  Event-driven self-management - Self-healing and Periodic self-
         management,

      *  Authentication of management systems and Authentication of
         managed devices,

      *  Access control on devices and Access control on management
         systems,

      *  Management of Energy Resources and Data models for energy
         management,

      *  Software distribution (group-based firmware update) and Group-
         based provisioning.

   o  Deleted the empty section on the gaps in network management
      standards, as it will be written in a separate draft.

   o  Added links to mentioned external pages.

   o  Added text on OMA M2M Device Classification in appendix.

A.5.  draft-ersue-constrained-mgmt-01-02

   o  Extended the terminology section.

   o  Added additional text for the use cases concerning deployment
      type, network topology in use, network size, network capabilities,
      radio technology, etc.

   o  Added examples for device classes in a use case.

   o  Added additional text provided by Cao Zhen (China Mobile) for
      Mobile Applications and by Peter van der Stok for Building
      Automation.

   o  Added the new use cases 'Advanced Metering Infrastructure' and
      'MANET Concept of Operations in Military'.

   o  Added the section 'Managing the Constrainedness of a Device or
      Network' discussing the needs of very constrained devices.

   o  Added a note that the requirements in Section 3 need to be seen as
      standalone requirements and the current document does not
      recommend any profile of requirements.

   o  Added Section 3 on the detailed requirements on constrained
      management matched to management tasks like fault, monitoring,

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 44]
Internet-Draft         Constrained Mgmt: PS, Rqmts             July 2014

      configuration management, Security and Access Control, Energy
      Management, etc.

   o  Solved nits and added references.

   o  Added Appendix A on the related development in other bodies.

   o  Added Appendix B on the work in related research projects.

A.6.  draft-ersue-constrained-mgmt-00-01

   o  Splitted the section on 'Networks of Constrained Devices' into the
      sections 'Network Topology Options' and 'Management Topology
      Options'.

   o  Added the use case 'Community Network Applications' and 'Mobile
      Applications'.

   o  Provided a Contributors section.

   o  Extended the section on 'Medical Applications'.

   o  Solved nits and added references.

Authors' Addresses

   Mehmet Ersue (editor)
   Nokia Networks

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

   Dan Romascanu
   Avaya

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

   Juergen Schoenwaelder
   Jacobs University Bremen

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

Ersue, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 45]

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:22:12 +0000

Hi Carsten, Thomas,

I might be a bit old-fashioned but I tend to think that the term “objective” associates with a “goal” and does not appear to be a replacement for “requirement”.
In the current document our aim was to go a bit further than specifying only some goals.

I would appreciate any comments.

Cheers,
Mehmet

From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Thomas Watteyne
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 1:09 AM
To: opsawg; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Thomas' review of draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-02

[resending CC'ing 6TiSCH ML]

On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Watteyne <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
+1

Thanks Carsten for the suggestions.

On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
On 10 Aug 2014, at 09:18, Thomas Watteyne <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

> As such, it is not a traditional requirement document, as does not list requirements as MUSTs and SHOULDs, but rather gives a clear overview of what those requirements might be. In that sense, I would suggest to not use the term "Requirements" in the title, but maybe "potential requirements”.
Objectives?
(That is a term that has turned out useful in other IETF work.)

Desiderata?
(A term that seems to be popular in CFRG right now, which also is trying to collect some soft form of requirements.)

Grüße, Carsten