Subject: [Rfid] minutes of the SLRRP BOF

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 14:50:49 -0800

please forward any corrections by COB tuesday, march 15th, us/pacific.

thanks!

/mtr

				  #######

			  MINUTES of the SLRRP BOF
			at IETF 62, Minneapolis, MN
		    9 March 2005, 13:00-15:00 US/Central

Barvick and Rose, the co-chairs, called the BOF to order.  Rose took
minutes. Approximately 125 people were in attendance.

Barvick welcomed the group and made an introductory presentation. In
brief, the BOF is to explore whether a reader control protocol should
be developed for RFID readers. Issues relating to tag/reader RF and
high-level APIs are out of scope.

Barvick presented the agenda: a status update, several presentations,
followed by an hour of discussion. No bashing of the agenda was 
suggested.

Barvick presented a status update: a mailing list, [email-masked] was
created to foster discussion. Further an example draft was written, and
revised, to provide a concrete example of the problem space.

P. Krishna presented issues regarding RFID network infrastructure. In
brief, end-nodes consist of tags, readers, and controlling
applications. A key concern is the density of tags and readers within
an environment and the attendant issues of RF interference. The
magnitude of readers, and their overlapping responsibilities, suggests
a need for ietf-centric expertise with respect to operations,
management, and security.

T. Humes presented issues regarding tag management. Tag deployments
will be both high-density and mobile. Accordingly, remote configuration
to manage RF isolation and tag identification is essential.

K. Powell presented dense-reader issues regarding channelization and
tag/reader configuration.

J. Littlefield discussed network management of readers. Configuration
is a key concern: as readers should go from power-on to operable
without manual interaction; similarly, applications and readers must be
able to discover each other easily, and readers must be configured to
their necessary "personality" automatically. Once configured, issues of
run-time management, fault diagnosis and security arise.

M. Wasserman discussed reader requirements. Readers have a wide
footprint range: from traditional end-system capability, to low-end
embedded, to handheld systems, to creditcard-sized devices.
Accordingly, there are a wide range of options. In terms of
configuration and management, SNMP may be appropriate; however, there
are many questions relating to level of abstraction, locality of
applications, and real-time issues. There are ongoing efforts for
reader management, viz., EPCglobal's work on MIBs for reader
monitoring, and Web services for reader control.

Discussion:

Resnick asked whether a WG would develop data models. Wasserman replied
that hopefully this would be done elsewhere, though others might 
disagree.

Falstrom asked whether a WG would develop naming and discovery. 
Wasserman
indicated that there had been some success with Rendezvous, but that
the larger issued remained.

Rescorla asked what the IETF's value proposition was with respect to
this work. Barvick repliced that issues of scalability and performance
would be well-served at the IETF.  (There was some discussion of
protocol specifics at this point, e.g., XML v. frame protocols, TCP v. 
UDP.)
Rose and Rescorla discussed where the line was with respect to IETF
interest, e.g., SCSI over IP, DOCSIS, etc. Resnick asked why the RFID
people were talking to the IETF. Powell indicated network expertise.

Crawley suggesed that the problem had two parts: getting the data in
and out, and management/control/scaling, and that we need to decide
whether we're combinging them or not.  Powell responded that
duplication of the first part wasn't desirable (although real-time 
issues
remain a concern), and that second part wasn't being addressed by 
EPCglobal.

Resnick wondered whether the problem could be solved by simply writing
a MIB.  Krishna indicated that SNMP may be insufficient with respect to
the control issues.

Crocker observed that the presenters indicated that RFID is growing
from small, homogeneous environments to large-scale integrated
hetereogeneous ones. That characterization sounds like an IETF problem,
actually several IETF-related problems. Krishna agreed.

Shockey thought it would be helpful for the presenters to explain to
the audience what work would be parallel, orthogonal, and/or competing
with EPCglobal. Barvick presented a "Related Efforts" slide indicating
that ISO was working on air protocols and data specifications, but not
working on network-centric specifications. In contrast, EPCglobal is
working on air protocols and Web services at various levels of
the infrastructure. In contrast, SLRRP is intended to focus on network
infrastructure requirements of large scale, interoperable deployments
across air protocols.

Barvick presented a "WG Proposal" slide outlining a possible charter:
1. Define and document the scope
2. Define the network-side communciations mechanism:
    - possibily SLRRP, or something else
    - solutions to defined data access and control problems
3. Work on network maturity requirements (post protocol)
    - scalable operations (dynamic configuration, service discovery)
    - enhanced security
    - management

Chandra(?) asked if there were memory/price constraints for readers?
Powell indicated that it depends on the specific marketplace; in some
markets readers cost $2500, in others they cost $2. Chandra then
wondered why XML wasn't scalable. Powell observed is moving away
barcodes to tags resulting in an exponential explosion of data.

Shockey asked if the presenters could describe intellectual property
issues with respect to RFID.  Powell indicated that there was
considerable IP with respect to tags, but that there was little IP, to
his knowledge, in the network-centric field.

Rescorla, Krishna, and Crocker discussed scalability issues with
respect to tags, readers, and applications, observing that a single
reader can illuminate 1500 tags/second, with each tag sending 256 bits.
With a high-density deployment, congestion may occur between either
tags/readers or readers/applications. Crocker observed that this sounds
like a networking problem.

Bradner observed that there are networking problems here, but a better
description of the problems is needed.

St.Johns thought the work should be done elsewhere as it was
reader-centric;l however, if the work introduces codepoints for other
kinds of companies, then it would be appropriate for the IETF.
Rose asked about the IETF's experience with cable modem
management. St.Johns didn't like that example, because he brought that
work to the IETF because he couldn't get it done in an industry
forum. Rose thought that made for an excellent example.

Eldeeb asked whether the presenters where interested only in the
reader/application issues only. Krishna indicated that reader/tag
interactions are out of scope.

Shockey thought the work was interesting, but felt that the IETF
needed a very narrow scope. Barvick asked whether we should start with
the protocol. Shockey did not want to go up the application chain.

Wasserman indicated that the IETF doesn't have the ability to stop the
EPCglobal efforts, so there could be multiple overlapping
protocols. Krishna noted that none of the reader vendors have
implemented EPCglobal's protocol work, which is why the presenters,
tag, reader, and network infrastructure vendors, are here at the IETF.
Wasserman worried about the maturity of the RFID industry and whether
enough was known to do work, and agreed to disagree with Krishna. 
Crocker
shares Wasserman's concerns about parallel efforts, and encourages
collaboration.

Lieba observed that standardizing data formats and transmission
protocols is what the IETF does.

Shockey, as a participant in both the IETF and EPCglobal efforts,
indicated a lack of surprise that RFID folks have come ot the IETF to
get work done.

Daigle observed that same-network issues can be addressed outside the
IETF; however, if the problem is viewed as a new collection of objects
to be managed, then the IETF should be intersted -- fixating on RFID is
a distraction.

At this point, the Area Director, Hollenbeck called for a hum on two
questions:

1. How many are interested in partipating in this work in the IETF? A
    noticable humming was evoked.

2. How many are not interested in the IETF pursuing this work? Two hums
    were heard.

Hollenbeck indicated that the IESG and IAB will review the BOF's
interactions and seek additional comment from the community before
     making a chartering decision.

Finally, Bradner asked wither EPCglobal knew about this effort and
whether coordination was necessary. Barvick indicated that the
EPCglobal was well aware of the BOF (and that many BOF participants had
skipped an EPCglobal concurrent meeting to attend the IETF).

Barvick and Rose adjourned the BOF.

				  #######

_______________________________________________
Rfid mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfid