Internet Engineering Task Force M. Ersue, Ed. Internet-Draft Nokia Siemens Networks Intended status: Informational D. Romascanu, Ed. Expires: April 18, 2013 Avaya J. Schoenwaelder, Ed. Jacobs University Bremen October 15, 2012 Management of Networks with Constrained Devices: Use Cases and Requirements draft-ersue-constrained-mgmt-02 Abstract This document raises the questions on and discusses the use cases and requirements for the management of networks with constrained devices. 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 April 18, 2013. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2012 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 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.3. Constrained Device Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.4. Class of Networks in Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.5. Network Topology Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.6. Management Topology Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.7. Managing the Constrainedness of a Device or Network . . . 10 2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.1. Environmental Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.2. Medical Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.3. Industrial Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.4. Home Automation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.5. Building Automation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.6. Energy Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.7. Transport Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.8. Infrastructure Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.9. Community Network Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.10. Mobile Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.11. Automated Metering Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.12. MANET Concept of Operations (CONOPS) in Military . . . . . 28 4. Requirements on the Management of Networks with Constrained Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.1. Management Architecture/System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.2. Management protocols and data model . . . . . . . . . . . 39 4.3. Configuration management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 4.4. Monitoring functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 4.5. Self-management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 4.6. Security and Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 4.7. Energy Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 4.8. SW Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 4.9. Traffic management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 4.10. Transport Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 4.11. Implementation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 5. Gaps in Network Management Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Appendix A. Related Development in other Bodies . . . . . . . . . 71 A.1. ETSI TC M2M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 A.2. OASIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 A.3. OMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 A.4. IPSO Alliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Appendix B. Related Research Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Appendix C. Open issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Appendix D. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 D.1. 01-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 D.2. 00-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 1. Introduction 1.1. Overview Small devices with limited CPU, memory, and power resources, so called constrained devices (aka. sensor, smart object, or smart device) 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 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 factories and send the information to one or more server stations. Constrained devices may 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 small devices with different resources and capabilities are becoming 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 Things (IoT) becomes a reality build up of uniquely identifiable objects (things). And over the next decade, this could grow to 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 management application periodically collects information from a set of elements that are needed to manage, processes the data, and presents them to the network management users. Constrained devices, however, often have 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 management of a network with constrained devices offers different Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 types of challenges compared to the management of a traditional IP network. The IETF has already done a lot of 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 resources, use today application-layer protocols in an ad-hoc manner to do simple resource management and monitoring. This document raises the questions on and aims to understand the use cases, requirements, and the required solution space for the management of a network with constrained devices. The document especially aims to avoid recommending any particular solutions. Section 1.5 and Section 1.6 describe different topology options for the networking and management of constrained devices. Section 1.3 explains the classes with which constrained devices can be categorized. Section 2 aims to provide a problem statement on the issue of the management of networked constrained devices. Section 3 lists diverse use cases and scenarios for the management from the network as well as from the application point of view. Section 4 lists requirements on the management of applications and networks with constrained devices. Note that the requirements in Section 4 need to be seen as standalone requirements. As of today this document does not recommend the realization of a profile of requirements. 1.2. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. The following terms are used throughout this documentation: Client: The originating endpoint of a request; the destination endpoint of a response. Constrained Device: A device with resource constraints, e.g., limited amount of memory, limited processing capabilities, limited energy supply. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Constrained Network: A network constrained in resources, e.g., bandwidth, latency, or data rate. Intermediary entity: As defined in the CoAP document an intermediary entity can be a CoAP endpoint that acts both as a server and as a client towards (possibly via further intermediaries) an origin server. An intermediary entity can be used to support hierarchical management. Network of Constrained Devices: A network to which constrained devices are connected. It may or may not be a Constrained Network. MANET: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks, a self-configuring infrastructureless network of mobile devices connected by wireless technologies. Mote: A sensor node in a wireless network that is capable of performing some limited processing, gathering sensory information and communicating with other connected nodes in the network. Server: The destination endpoint of a request; the originating endpoint of a response. 1.3. Constrained Device Classes To organize the discussion, it is often useful to have some succinct terminology for different classes of constrained devices. Following [I-D.ietf-lwig-guidance], we distinguish the following classes: +---------+-----------------------+-------------------------+ | Name | data size (e.g., RAM) | code size (e.g., Flash) | +---------+-----------------------+-------------------------+ | Class 0 | << 10 KiB | << 100 KiB | | | | | | Class 1 | ~ 10 KiB | ~ 100 KiB | | | | | | Class 2 | ~ 50 KiB | ~ 250 KiB | +---------+-----------------------+-------------------------+ Table 1: Classes of Constrained Devices Class 0 (C0) devices are very constrained sensor-like motes. Most likely they will not have the possibility to communicate directly with the Internet in a secure manner. The Class 0 devices will participate in Internet communications with the help of larger devices acting as proxy or gateways. It is assumed that C0 devices cannot be managed comprehensively in the traditional sense. They will be most likely preconfigured and if ever will be reconfigured Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 rarely with a very small data set. At most, they could answer keep- alive signals and send on/off or basic health indications. Class 1 (C1) devices cannot easily talk to other Internet nodes with a full protocol stack using HTTP, TLS and related security protocols, and XML-based data representations. However, they have enough power to use a reduced or lightweight protocol stack (e.g. CoAP over UDP) and participate in meaningful conversations without the help of a gateway node. Therefore, they can be integrated into an IP network in one way or the other but need to spare with memory for the protocol and application usage. Class 2 (C2) can support mostly the same protocol stack as used on notebooks or servers. However, even these devices can benefit from lightweight and energy-efficient protocols and consuming less bandwidth on air. Furthermore, using less network resources would leave more resources available to applications. As such using the same protocol stack on Class 1 and 2 devices might reduce development costs and increase the interoperability. For C1 devices, it is indeed important to understand what type of applications they could run and which management mechanisms would be most suitable. Because of memory and other limitations, C1 devices might be able to support only a few selected functions at any given time. As such, the set of supported functions is not static per device type, IOW devices with similar constraints might choose to support different functions. Even though they have some more functionality available, C2 devices need to be assessed for the type of applications they will be running and the management they would need. To be able to derive the requirements, the uses cases and the involvement of the devices in the management scenario need to be analyzed. The use cases where C1 or C2 devices build a cluster or are part of a hierarchy as well as the assumed degree of automation might be essentially important. C1 and C2 devices are typically driven by 8-bit or 16-bit processors and they have in common that they are severely constrained by the amount of memory they can use. However, there are also a number of devices that can afford to have 32-bit processors and memory sizes counted in MiB instead of KiB. While such devices are easily capable to run a complete IP protocol stack, they still can be constrained by a limited energy supply. We will call this class of devices power constrained devices. 1.4. Class of Networks in Focus In this document we differentiate following network types: Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 (Note that a network in general can involve non-constrained and constrained devices.) o Wireline non-constrained networks (CN0), e.g. an Ethernet-LAN with non-constrained and constrained devices involved. o A combination of wireline and wireless networks (CN1), which may or may not be mesh-based but have a multi-hop connectivity between constrained devices, utilizing dynamic routing in both the wireless and wireline portions of the network. CN1 networks usually support highly distributed applications with many nodes (e.g. environmental monitoring). CN1 networks tend to deal with large-scale multipoint-to-point systems with massive data flows. Wireless Mesh Networks (WMN), as a specific type of CN1 networks, 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. o A combination of wireline and wireless networks with point-to- point or point-to-multipoint communication (CN2) generally with single-hop connectivity to constrained devices, utilizing static routing over the wireless network. CN2 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. CN2 networks usually 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 CN2 networks. o Mobile Adhoc networks (MANET) are self-configuring _infrastructureless_ networks of mobile devices connected by wireless technologies. MANETs are based on point-to-point communications of devices moving independently in any direction and changing the links to other devices frequently. MANET devices do act as a router to forward traffic unrelated to their own use. Note that the discussion on the management requirements of MANETs is currently not in the focus of this document. The use case in Section 3.4 has been provided to make it clear how a MANET-based application differs from others. A CN0 network is used for specific applications like Building Automation or Infrastructure Monitoring. However, CN1 and CN2 networks are especially in the interest of the analysis on the management of constrained devices in this document. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 1.5. Network Topology Options We differentiate following topology options for the networks of constrained devices: o a network of constrained devices, which communicate with each other, o Constrained devices, which are connected directly to the Internet or a bigger 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 a bigger 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 1.6. 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 constrained network is managed by more than one manager. Each manager controls a 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 assigned to many managers dynamically, or strongly distributed, where almost all managed things have embedded management functionality and explicit Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 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 constrained networks 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. 1.7. 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. A constrained device: o might only support an unreliable radio with lossy links, i.e. the client and server of a management protocol need to gracefully 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), 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. 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 Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 entity which is capable of data compression should be able to communicate with both, devices, which support data compression (e.g. C2) and devices, which do not support data compression (e.g. C1 and C0). o might only be able to support very simple encryption, i.e. it would be efficient if the devices use cryptographic algorithms that are supported in hardware. 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. o might possibly generate a huge amount of redundant reporting data, i.e. the intermediary management entity should be able to filter and aggregate redundant data. A constrained network: Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 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 is 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, which is energy-efficient, using as little wireless bandwidth as possible since communication is highly energy demanding. 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, which 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, failures detected by the transport protocol and other self-monitoring mechanisms 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. 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 algorithms for security. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 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 tininess of the network nodes requires a rethinking of the protocol characteristics concerning power consumption, performance, memory, and CPU usage. As such, there is a demand for protocol simplification, energy-efficient communication, less CPU usage and small memory footprint. On the application layer the IETF is already developing protocols like the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [I-D.ietf-core-coap] supporting 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 small devices (e.g. smart meters), which produce a huge amount of data. This data needs to be collected, filtered, and pre-processed for further use in diverse services. Considering the high number of nodes to deploy, one has to think on the manageability aspects of the smart devices and to 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. A simple 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, Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 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 might become necessary to design as much as possible simplified and less complex. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 3. Use Cases This section discusses some application scenarios where networks of constrained devices are expected to be deployed. For each application scenario, we first briefly describe the characteristics followed by a discussion how network management can be provided, who is likely going to be responsible for it, and on which time-scale management operations are likely to be carried out. 3.1. Environmental Monitoring Environmental monitoring applications are characterized by the deployment of a number of sensors to monitor emissions, water quality, or even the movements and habits of wildlife. Other applications in this category include earthquake or tsunami early- warning systems. The sensors often span a large geographic area, they can be mobile, and they are often difficult to replace. Furthermore, the sensors are usually not protected against tampering. Management of environmental monitoring applications is largely concerned with the monitoring whether the system is still functional and the roll-out of new constrained devices in case the system looses too much of its structure. The constrained devices themselves need to be able to establish connectivity (auto-configuration) and they need to be able to deal with events such as loosing neighbors or being moved to other locations. Management responsibility typically rests with the organization running the environmental monitoring application. Since these monitoring applications must be designed to tolerate a number of failures, the time scale for detecting and recording failures is for some of these applications likely measured in hours and repairs might easily take days. However, for certain environmental monitoring applications, much tighter time scales may exist and might be enforced by regulations (e.g., monitoring of nuclear radiation). 3.2. Medical Applications Constrained devices can be seen as an enabling technology for advanced and possibly remote health monitoring and emergency notification systems, ranging from blood pressure and heart rate monitors to advanced devices capable to monitor implanted technologies, such as pacemakers or advanced hearing aids. Medical sensors may not only be attached to human bodies, they might also exist in the infrastructure used by humans such as bathrooms or kitchens. Medical applications will also be used to ensure treatments are being applied properly and they might guide people losing orientation. Fitness and wellness applications, such as Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 connected scales or wearable heart monitors, encourage consumers to exercise and empower self-monitoring of key fitness indicators. Different applications use Bluetooth, Wi-Fi or Zigbee connections to access the patient's smartphone or home cellular connection to access the Internet. Constrained devices that are part of medical applications are managed either by the users of those devices or by an organization providing medical (monitoring) services for physicians. In the first case, management must be automatic and or easy to install and setup by average people. In the second case, it can be expected that devices be controlled by specially trained people. In both cases, however, it is crucial to protect the privacy of the people to which medical devices are attached. Even though the data collected by a heart beat monitor might be protected, the pure fact that someone carries such a device may need protection. As such, certain medical appliances may not want to participate in discovery and self-configuration protocols in order to remain invisible. Many medical devices are likely to be used (and relied upon) to provide data to physicians in critical situations since the biggest market is likely elderly and handicapped people. As such, fault detection of the communication network or the constrained devices becomes a crucial function that must be carried out with high reliability and, depending on the medical appliance and its application, within seconds. 3.3. Industrial Applications Industrial Applications and smart manufacturing refer not only to production equipment, but also to a factory that carries out centralized control of energy, HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning), lighting, access control, etc. via a network. For the management of a factory it is becoming essential to implement smart capabilities. From an engineering standpoint, industrial applications are intelligent systems enabling rapid manufacturing of new products, dynamic response to product demand, and real-time optimization of manufacturing production and supply chain networks. Potential industrial applications e.g. for smart factories and smart manufacturing are: o Digital control systems with embedded, automated process controls, operator tools, as well as service information systems optimizing plant operations and safety. o Asset management using predictive maintenance tools, statistical evaluation, and measurements maximizing plant reliability. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 o Smart sensors detecting anomalies to avoid abnormal or catastrophic events. o Smart systems integrated within the industrial energy management system and externally with the smart grid enabling real-time energy optimization. Sensor networks are an essential technology used for smart manufacturing. Measurements, automated controls, plant optimization, health and safety management, and other functions are provided by a large number of networked sectors. Data interoperability and seamless exchange of product, process, and project data are enabled through interoperable data systems used by collaborating divisions or business systems. Intelligent automation and learning systems are vital to smart manufacturing but must be effectively integrated with the decision environment. Wireless sensor networks (WSN) have been developed for machinery Condition-based Maintenance (CBM) as they offer significant cost savings and enable new functionalities. Inaccessible locations, rotating machinery, hazardous areas, and mobile assets can be reached with wireless sensors. WSNs can provide today wireless link reliability, real-time capabilities, and quality- of-service and enable industrial and related wireless sense and control applications. Management of industrial and factory applications is largely focused on the monitoring whether the system is still functional, real-time continuous performance monitoring, and optimization as necessary. The factory network might be part of a campus network or connected to the Internet. The constrained devices in such a network need to be able to establish configuration themselves (auto-configuration) and might need to deal with error conditions as much as possible locally. Access control has to be provided with multi-level administrative access and security. Support and diagnostics can be provided through remote monitoring access centralized outside of the factory. Management responsibility is typically owned by the organization running the industrial application. Since the monitoring applications must handle a potentially large number of failures, the time scale for detecting and recording failures is for some of these applications likely measured in minutes. However, for certain industrial applications, much tighter time scales may exist, e.g. in real-time, which might be enforced by the manufacturing process or the use of critical material. 3.4. Home Automation Home automation includes the control of lighting, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, appliances, and entertainment devices Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 to improve convenience, comfort, energy efficiency, and security. It can be seen as a residential extension of building automation. Home automation networks need a certain amount of configuration (associating switches or sensors to actors) that is either provided by electricians deploying home automation solutions or done by residents by using the application user interface to configure (parts of) the home automation solution. Similarly, failures may be reported via suitable interfaces to residents or they might be recorded and made available to electricians in charge of the maintenance of the home automation infrastructure. The management responsibility lies either with the residents or it may be outsourced to electricians providing management of home automation solutions as a service. The time scale for failure detection and resolution is in many cases likely counted in hours to days. 3.5. Building Automation Building automation comprises the distributed systems designed and deployed to monitor and control the mechanical, electrical and electronic systems inside buildings with various destinations (e.g., public and private, industrial, institutions, or residential). Advanced Building Automation Systems (BAS) may be deployed concentrating the various functions of safety, environmental control, occupancy, security. More and more the deployment of the various functional systems is connected to the same communication infrastructure (possibly Internet Protocol based), which may involve wired or wireless communications networks inside the building. Building automation requires the deployment of a large number (10- 100.000) of sensors that monitor the status of devices, and parameters inside the building and controllers with different specialized functionality for areas within the building or the totality of the building. Inter-node distances between neighboring nodes vary between 1 to 20 meters. Contrary to home automation in building management all devices are known to a set of commissioning tools and a data storage, such that every connected device has a known origin. The management includes verifying the presence of the expected devices and detecting the presence of unwanted devices. Examples of functions performed by such controllers are regulating the quality, humidity, and temperature of the air inside the building and lighting. Other systems may report the status of the machinery inside the building like elevators, or inside the rooms like projectors in meeting rooms. Security cameras and sensors may be deployed and operated on separate dedicated infrastructures connected Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 to the common backbone. The deployment area of a BAS is typically inside one building (or part of it) or several buildings geographically grouped in a campus. A building network can be composed of subnets, where a subnet covers a floor, an area on the floor, or a given functionality (e.g. security cameras). Some of the sensors in Building Automation Systems (for example fire alarms or security systems) register, record and transfer critical alarm information and therefore must be resilient to events like loss of power or security attacks. This leads to the need that some components and subsystems operate in constrained conditions and are separately certified. Also in some environments, the malfunctioning of a control system (like temperature control) needs to be reported in the shortest possible time. Complex control systems can misbehave, and their critical status reporting and safety algorithms need to be basic and robust and perform even in critical conditions. Building Automation solutions are deployed in some cases in newly designed buildings, in other cases it might be over existing infrastructures. In the first case, there is a broader range of possible solutions, which can be planned for the infrastructure of the building. In the second case the solution needs to be deployed over an existing structure taking into account factors like existing wiring, distance limitations, the propagation of radio signals over walls and floors. As a result, some of the existing WLAN solutions (e.g. IEEE 802.11 or IEEE 802.15) may be deployed. In mission- critical or security sensitive environments and in cases where link failures happen often, topologies that allow for reconfiguration of the network and connection continuity may be required. Some of the sensors deployed in building automation may be very simple constrained devices for which class 0 or class 1 may be assumed. For lighting applications, groups of lights must be defined and managed. Commands to a group of light must arrive within 200 ms at all destinations. The installation and operation of a building network has different requirements. During the installation, many stand-alone networks of a few to 100 nodes co-exist without a connection to the backbone. During this phase, the nodes are identified with a network identifier related to their physical location. Devices are accessed from an installation tool to connect them to the network in a secure fashion. During installation, the setting of parameters to common values to enable interoperability may occur (e.g. Trickle parameter values). During operation, the networks are connected to the backbone while maintaining the network identifier to physical location relation. Network parameters like address and name are stored in DNS. The names can assist in determining the physical location of the device. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 3.6. Energy Management EMAN working group developed [I-D.ietf-eman-framework], which defines a framework for providing Energy Management for devices within or connected to communication networks. This document observes that one of the challenges of energy management is that a power distribution network is responsible for the supply of energy to various devices and components, while a separate communication network is typically used to monitor and control the power distribution network. Devices that have energy management capability are defined as Energy Devices and identified components within a device (Energy Device Components) can be monitored for parameters like Power, Energy, Demand and Power Quality. If a device contains batteries, they can be also monitored and managed. Energy devices differ in complexity and may include basic sensors or switches, specialized electrical meters, or power distribution units (PDU), and subsystems inside the network devices (routers, network switches) or home or industrial appliances. An Energy Management System is a combination of hardware and software used to administer a network with the primary purpose being Energy Management. The operators of such a system are either the utility providers or customers that aim to control and reduce the energy consumption and the associated costs. The topology in use differs and the deployment can cover areas from small surfaces (individual homes) to large geographical areas. EMAN requirements document [I-D.ietf-eman-requirements] discusses the requirements for energy management concerning monitoring and control functions. It is assumed that Energy Management will apply to a large range of devices of all classes and networks topologies. Specific resource monitoring like battery utilization and availability may be specific to devices with lower physical resources (device classes C0 or C1). Energy Management is especially relevant to Smart Grid. A Smart Grid is an electrical grid that uses data networks to gather and act on energy and power-related information, in an automated fashion with the goal to improve the efficiency, reliability, economics, and sustainability of the production and distribution of electricity. As such Smart Grid provides sustainable and reliable generation, transmission, distribution, storage and consumption of electrical energy based on advanced energy and ICT solutions and as such enables e.g. following specific application areas: Smart transmission systems, Demand Response/Load Management, Substation Automation, Advanced Distribution Management, Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), Smart Metering, Smart Home and Building Automation, E-mobility, etc. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Smart Metering is a good example of a M2M application and can be realized as one of the vertical applications in an M2M environment. Different types of possibly wireless small meters produce all together a huge amount of data, which is collected by a central entity and processed by an application server. The M2M infrastructure can be provided by a mobile network operator as the meters in urban areas will have most likely a cellular or WiMAX radio. Smart Grid is built on a distributed and heterogeneous network and can use a combination of diverse networking technologies, such as wireless Access Technologies (WiMAX, Cellular, etc.), wireline and Internet Technologies (e.g., IP/MPLS, Ethernet, SDH/PDH over Fiber optic, etc.) as well as technologies enabling the networking of smart meters, home appliances, and constrained devices (e.g. BT-LE, ZigBee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, etc.). The operational effectiveness of the smart grid is highly dependent on a robust, two-way, secure, and reliable communications network with suitable availability. The management of a distributed system like smart grid requires an end-to-end management of and information exchange through different type of networks. However, as of today there is no integrated smart grid management approach and no common smart grid information model available. Specific smart grid applications or network islands use their own management mechanisms. For example, the management of smart meters depends very much on the AMI environment they have been integrated to and the networking technologies they are using. In general, smart meters do only need seldom reconfiguration and they send a small amount of redundant data to a central entity. For a discussion on the management needs of an AMI network see Section 3.11. The management needs for Smart Home and Building Automation are discussed in Section 3.4 and Section 3.5. 3.7. Transport Applications Transport Application is a generic term for the integrated application of communications, control, and information processing in a transportation system. Transport telematics or vehicle telematics are used as a term for the group of technologies that support transportation systems. Transport applications running on such a transportation system cover all modes of the transport and consider all elements of the transportation system, i.e. the vehicle, the infrastructure, and the driver or user, interacting together dynamically. The overall aim is to improve decision making, often in real time, by transport network controllers and other users, thereby improving the operation of the entire transport system. As such, transport applications can be seen as one of the important M2M service scenarios with the involvement of manifold small devices. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 The definition encompasses a broad array of techniques and approaches that may be achieved through stand-alone technological applications or as enhancements to other transportation communication schemes. Examples for transport applications are inter and intra vehicular communication, smart traffic control, smart parking, electronic toll collection systems, logistic and fleet management, vehicle control, and safety and road assistance. As a distributed system, transport applications require an end-to-end management of different types of networks. It is likely that constrained devices in a network (e.g. a moving in-car network) have to be controlled by an application running on an application server in the network of a service provider. Such a highly distributed network including mobile devices on vehicles is assumed to include a wireless access network using diverse long distance wireless technologies such as WiMAX, 3G/LTE or satellite communication, e.g. based on an embedded hardware module. As a result, the management of constrained devices in the transport system might be necessary to plan top-down and might need to use data models obliged from and defined on the application layer. The assumed device classes in use are mainly C2 devices. In cases, where an in-vehicle network is involved, C1 devices with limited capabilities and a short-distance constrained radio network, e.g. IEEE 802.15.4 might be used additionally. Management responsibility typically rests within the organization running the transport application. The constrained devices in a moving transport network might be initially configured in a factory and a reconfiguration might be needed only rarely. New devices might be integrated in an ad-hoc manner based on self-management and -configuration capabilities. Monitoring and data exchange might be necessary to do via a gateway entity connected to the back-end transport infrastructure. The devices and entities in the transport infrastructure need to be monitored more frequently and can be able to communicate with a higher data rate. The connectivity of such entities does not necessarily need to be wireless. The time scale for detecting and recording failures in a moving transport network is likely measured in hours and repairs might easily take days. It is likely that a self-healing feature would be used locally. 3.8. Infrastructure Monitoring Infrastructure monitoring is concerned with the monitoring of infrastructures such as bridges, railway tracks, or (offshore) windmills. The primary goal is usually to detect any events or changes of the structural conditions that can impact the risk and safety of the infrastructure being monitored. Another secondary goal is to schedule repair and maintenance activities in a cost effective Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 22] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 manner. The infrastructure to monitor might be in a factory or spread over a wider area but difficult to access. As such, the network in use might be based on a combination of fixed and wireless technologies, which use robust networking equipment and support reliable communication. It is likely that constrained devices in such a network are mainly C2 devices and have to be controlled centrally by an application running on a server. In case such a distributed network is widely spread, the wireless devices might use diverse long-distance wireless technologies such as WiMAX, or 3G/LTE, e.g. based on embedded hardware modules. In cases, where an in-building network is involved, the network can be based on Ethernet or wireless technologies suitable for in-building usage. The management of infrastructure monitoring applications is primarily concerned with the monitoring of the functioning of the system. Infrastructure monitoring devices are typically rolled out and installed by dedicated experts and changes are rare since the infrastructure itself changes rarely. However, monitoring devices are often deployed in unsupervised environments and hence special attention must be given to protecting the devices from being modified. Management responsibility typically rests with the organization owning the infrastructure or responsible for its operation. The time scale for detecting and recording failures is likely measured in hours and repairs might easily take days. However, certain events (e.g., natural disasters) may require that status information be obtained much more quickly and that replacements of failed sensors can be rolled out quickly (or redundant sensors are activated quickly). In case the devices are difficult to access, a self- healing feature on the device might become necessary. 3.9. Community Network Applications Community networks are comprised of constrained routers in a multi- hop mesh topology, communicating over a lossy, and often wireless channel. While the routers are mostly non-mobile, the topology may be very dynamic because of fluctuations in link quality of the (wireless) channel caused by, e.g., obstacles, or other nearby radio transmissions. Depending on the routers that are used in the community network, the resources of the routers (memory, CPU) may be more or less constrained - available resources may range from only a few kilobytes of RAM to several megabytes or more, and CPUs may be small and embedded, or more powerful general-purpose processors. Examples of such community networks are the FunkFeuer network (Vienna, Austria), FreiFunk (Berlin, Germany), Seattle Wireless Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 23] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 (Seattle, USA), and AWMN (Athens, Greece). These community networks are public and non-regulated, allowing their users to connect to each other and - through an uplink to an ISP - to the Internet. No fee, other than the initial purchase of a wireless router, is charged for these services. Applications of these community networks can be diverse, e.g., location based services, free Internet access, file sharing between users, distributed chat services, social networking etc, video sharing etc. As an example of a community network, the FunkFeuer network comprises several hundred routers, many of which have several radio interfaces (with omnidirectional and some directed antennas). The routers of the network are small-sized wireless routers, such as the Linksys WRT54GL, available in 2011 for less than 50 Euros. These routers, with 16 MB of RAM and 264 MHz of CPU power, are mounted on the rooftops of the users. When new users want to connect to the network, they acquire a wireless router, install the appropriate firmware and routing protocol, and mount the router on the rooftop. IP addresses for the router are assigned manually from a list of addresses (because of the lack of autoconfiguration standards for mesh networks in the IETF). While the routers are non-mobile, fluctuations in link quality require an ad hoc routing protocol that allows for quick convergence to reflect the effective topology of the network (such as NHDP [RFC6130] and OLSRv2 [I-D.ietf-manet-olsrv2] developed in the MANET WG). Usually, no human interaction is required for these protocols, as all variable parameters required by the routing protocol are either negotiated in the control traffic exchange, or are only of local importance to each router (i.e. do not influence interoperability). However, external management and monitoring of an ad hoc routing protocol may be desirable to optimize parameters of the routing protocol. Such an optimization may lead to a more stable perceived topology and to a lower control traffic overhead, and therefore to a higher delivery success ratio of data packets, a lower end-to-end delay, and less unnecessary bandwidth and energy usage. Different use cases for the management of community networks are possible: o One single Network Management Station (NMS), e.g. a border gateway providing connectivity to the Internet, requires managing or monitoring routers in the community network, in order to investigate problems (monitoring) or to improve performance by changing parameters (managing). As the topology of the network is dynamic, constant connectivity of each router towards the management station cannot be guaranteed. Current network management protocols, such as SNMP and Netconf, may be used (e.g., Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 24] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 using interfaces such as the NHDP-MIB [I-D.ietf-manet-nhdp-mib]). However, when routers in the community network are constrained, existing protocols may require too many resources in terms of memory and CPU; and more importantly, the bandwidth requirements may exceed the available channel capacity in wireless mesh networks. Moreover, management and monitoring may be unfeasible if the connection between the NMS and the routers is frequently interrupted. o A distributed network monitoring, in which more than one management station monitors or manages other routers. Because connectivity to a server cannot be guaranteed at all times, a distributed approach may provide a higher reliability, at the cost of increased complexity. Currently, no IETF standard exists for distributed monitoring and management. o Monitoring and management of a whole network or a group of routers. Monitoring the performance of a community network may require more information than what can be acquired from a single router using a network management protocol. Statistics, such as topology changes over time, data throughput along certain routing paths, congestion etc., are of interest for a group of routers (or the routing domain) as a whole. As of 2012, no IETF standard allows for monitoring or managing whole networks, instead of single routers. 3.10. Mobile Applications M2M services are increasingly provided by mobile service providers as numerous devices, home appliances, utility meters, cars, video surveillance cameras, and health monitors, are connected with mobile broadband technologies. This diverse range of machines brings new network and service requirements and challenges. Different applications e.g. in a home appliance or in-car network use Bluetooth, Wi-Fi or Zigbee and connect to a cellular module acting as a gateway between the constrained environment and the mobile cellular network. Such a gateway might provide different options for the connectivity of mobile networks and constrained devices, e.g.: o a smart phone with 3G/4G and WLAN radio might use BT-LE to connect to the devices in a home area network, o a femtocell might be combined with home gateway functionality acting as a low-power cellular base station connecting smart devices to the application server of a mobile service provider. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 25] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 o an embedded cellular module with LTE radio connecting the devices in the car network with the server running the telematics service, o an M2M gateway connected to the mobile operator network supporting diverse IoT connectivity technologies including ZigBee and CoAP over 6LoWPAN over IEEE 802.15.4. Common to all scenarios above is that they are embedded in a service and connected to a network provided by a mobile service provider. Usually there is a hierarchical deployment and management topology in place where different parts of the network are managed by different management entities and the count of devices to manage is high (e.g. many thousands). In general, the network is comprised by manifold type and size of devices matching to different device classes. As such, the managing entity needs to be prepared to manage devices with diverse capabilities using different communication or management protocols. In case the devices are directly connected to a gateway they most likely are managed by a management entity integrated with the gateway, which itself is part of the Network Management System (NMS) run by the mobile operator. Smart phones or embedded modules connected to a gateway might be themselves in charge to manage the devices on their level. The initial and subsequent configuration of such a device is mainly based on self-configuration and is triggered by the device itself. The challenges in the management of devices in a mobile application are manifold. Firstly, the issues caused through the device mobility need to be taken into consideration. While the cellular devices are moving around or roaming between different regional networks, they should report their status to the corresponding management entities with regard to their proximity and management hierarchy. Secondly, a variety of device troubleshooting information needs to be reported to the management system in order to provide accurate service to the customer. Third but not least, the NMS and the used management protocol need to be tailored to keep the cellular devices lightweight and as energy efficient as possible. The data models used in these scenario are mostly derived from the models of the operator NMS and might be used to monitor the status of the devices and to exchange the data sent by or read from the devices. The gateway might be in charge of filtering and aggregating the data received from the device as the information sent by the device might be mostly redundant. 3.11. Automated Metering Infrastructure An AMI network enables an electric utility to retrieve frequent electric usage data from each electric meter installed at a Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 26] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 customer's home or business. With an AMI network, a utility can also receive immediate notification of power outages when they occur, directly from the electric meters that are experiencing those outages. In addition, if the AMI network is designed to be open and extensible, it could serve as the backbone for communicating with other distribution automation devices besides meters, which could include transformers and reclosers. In this use case, each meter in the AMI network contains a constrained device. These devices are typically C2 devices. Each meter connects to a constrained mesh network with a low-bandwidth radio. These radios can be 50, 150, or 200 kbps at raw link speed, but actual network throughput may be significantly lower due to forward error correction, multihop delays, MAC delays, lossy links, and protocol overhead. The constrained devices are used to connect the metering logic with the network, so that usage data and outage notifications can be sent back to the utility's headend systems over the network. These headend systems are located in a data center managed by the utility, and may include meter data collection systems, meter data management systems, and outage management systems. The meters are connected to a mesh network, and each meter can act as both a source of traffic and as a router for other meters' traffic. In a typical AMI application, smaller amounts of traffic (read requests, configuration) flow "downstream" from the headend to the mesh, and larger amounts of traffic flow "upstream" from the mesh to the headend. However, during a firmware update operation, larger amounts of traffic might flow downstream while smaller amounts flow upstream. Other applications that make use of the AMI network may have their own distinct traffic flows. The mesh network is anchored by a collection of higher-end devices, which contain a mesh radio that connects to the constrained network as well as a backhaul link that connects to a less-constrained network. The backhaul link could be cellular, WiMAX, or Ethernet, depending on the backhaul networking technology that the utility has chosen. These higher-end devices (termed "routers" in this use case) are typically installed on utility poles throughout the service territory. Router devices are typically less constrained than meters, and often contain the full routing table for all the endpoints routing through them. In this use case, the utility typically installs on the order of 1000 meters per router. The collection of meters that are routing through a specific router is called a "PAN". When powered on, each meter is designed to discover the nearby PANs, select the optimal PAN to join, Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 27] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 and select the optimal meters in that PAN to route through when sending data to the headend. After joining the PAN, the meter is designed to continuously monitor and optimize its connection to the PAN, and it may change routes and PANs as needed. Because of this continuous optimization, PAN membership can change frequently throughout the life of the network. Each PAN may be configured e.g. to share an encryption key, providing confidentiality for all data traffic within the PAN. This key may be obtained by a meter only after an end-to-end authentication process based on certificates, ensuring that only authorized and authenticated meters are allowed to join the PAN, and by extension, the mesh network as a whole. After joining the PAN, each endpoint obtains a routable and possibly private IPv6 address that enables end-to-end communication between the headend systems and each meter. In this use case, the meters are always-on. However, due to lossy links and network optimization, not every meter will be immediately accessible, though eventually every meter will be able to exchange data with the headend. In a large AMI deployment, there may be 10 million meters supported by 10.000 routers, spread across a very large geographic area. Within a single PAN, the meters may range between 1 and approx. 20 hops from the router. During the deployment process, these meters are installed and turned on in large batches, and those meters must be authenticated, given addresses, and provisioned with any configuration information necessary for their operation. During deployment and after deployment is finished, the network must be monitored continuously and failures must be handled. Configuration parameters may need to be changed on large numbers of devices, but most of the devices will be running the same configuration. Moreover, eventually, the firmware in those meters will need to be upgraded, and this must also be done in large batches because most of the devices will be running the same firmware image. Because there may be thousands of routers, this operational model (batch deployment, automatic provisioning, continuous monitoring, batch reconfiguration, batch firmware update) should also apply to the routers as well as the constrained devices. The scale is different (thousands instead of millions) but still large enough to make individual management impractical for routers as well. 3.12. MANET Concept of Operations (CONOPS) in Military The use case on the Concept of Operations (CONOPS) focuses on the configuration and monitoring of networks that are currently being used in military and as such, it offers insights and challenges of Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 28] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 network management that military agencies are facing. As technology advances, military networks nowadays become large and consist of varieties of different types of equipments that run different protocols and tools that obviously increase complexity of the tactical networks. Moreover, lacks of open common interfaces and Application Programming Interface (API) are often a challenge to network management. Configurations are, most likely, manually performed. Some devices do not support IP networks. Integration and evaluation process are no longer trivial for a large set of protocols and tools. In addition, majority of protocols and tools developed by vendors that are being used are proprietary which makes integration more difficult. The main reason that leads to this problem is that there is no clearly defined standard for the MANET Concept of Operations (CONOPS). In the following, a set of scenarios of network operations are described, which might lead to the development of network management protocols and a framework that can potentially be used in military networks. Note: The term "node" is used at IETF for either a host or router. The term "unit" or "mobile unit" in military (e.g. Humvees, tanks) is a unit that contains multiple routers, hosts, and/or other non-IP- based communication devices. Scenario: Parking Lot Staging Area: The Parking Lot Staging Area is the most common network operation that is currently widely used in military prior to deployment. MANET routers, which can be identical such as the platoon leader's or rifleman's radio, are shipped to a remote location along with a Fixed Network Operations Center (NOC), where they are all connected over traditional wired or wireless networks. The Fixed NOC then performs mass-configuration and evaluation of configuration processes. The same concept can be applied to mobile units. Once all units are successfully configured, they are ready to be deployed. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 29] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 +---------+ +----------+ | Fixed |<---+------->| router_1 | | NOC | | +----------+ +---------+ | | +----------+ +------->| router_2 | | +----------+ | 0 | 0 | 0 | +----------+ +------->| router_N | +----------+ Figure 1: Parking Lot Staging Area Scenario: Monitoring with SatCom Reachback: The Monitoring with SatCom Reachback, which is considered another possible common scenario to military's network operations, is similar to the Parking Lot Staging Area. Instead, the Fixed NOC and MANET routers are connected through a Satellite Communications (SatCom) network. The Monitoring with SatCom Reachback is a scenario where MANET routers are augmented with SatCom Reachback capabilities while On-The-Move (OTM). Vehicles carrying MANET routers support multiple types of wireless interfaces, including High Capacity Short Range Radio interfaces as well as Low Capacity OTM SatCom interfaces. The radio interfaces are the preferred interfaces for carrying data traffic due to their high capacity, but the range is limiting with respect to connectivity to a Fixed NOC. Hence, OTM SatCom interfaces offer a more persistent but lower capacity reachback capability. The existence of a SatCom persistent Reachback capability offers the NOC the ability to monitor and manage the MANET routers over the air. Similarly to the Parking Lot Staging scenario, the same concept can be applied to mobile units. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 30] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 --- +--+ --- / /---|SC|---/ / --- +--+ --- +---------+ | | Fixed |<---------------------+ | NOC | +--------------| +---------+ | +-------------------+ | | | +----------+ | +----------+ | router_1 | +----------+ | router_N | +----------+ | | +----------+ * | | * * * +----------+ | * * *********| router_2 |*****|******* * +----------+ | * * | * * +----------+ * ********| router_3 |**** +----------+ --- SatCom links *** Radio links Figure 2: Monitoring with one-hop SatCom Reachback network Scenario: Hierarchical Management: Another reasonable scenario common to military operations in a MANET environment is the Hierarchical Management scenario. Vehicles carry a rather complex set of networking devices, including routers running MANET control protocols. In this hierarchical architecture, the MANET mobile unit has a rather complex internal architecture where a local manager within the unit is responsible for local management. The local management includes management of the MANET router and control protocols, the firewall, servers, proxies, hosts and applications. In addition, a standard management interface is required in this architecture. Moreover, in addition to requiring standard management interfaces into the components comprising the MANET nodal architecture, the local manager is responsible for local monitoring and the generation of periodic reports back to the Fixed NOC. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 31] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Interface | V +---------+ +-------------------------+ | Fixed | Interface | +---+ +---+ | | NOC |<---+------->| | R |--+--| F | | +---------+ | | +---+ | +---+ | | | | | +---+ | | | +---+ | +--| P | | | | | M |--+ | +---+ | | | +---+ | | | | | +---+ | | | +--| D | | | | | +---+ | | | | | | | | +---+ | | | +--| H | | | | | +---+ | | | unit_1 | | +-------------------------+ | | | +--------+ +------->| unit_2 | | +--------+ | 0 | 0 | 0 | +--------+ +------->| unit_N | +--------+ Key: R-Router F-Firewall P-PEP (Performance Enhancing Proxy) D-Servers, e.g., DNS H-hosts M-Local Manager Figure 3: Hierarchical Management Scenario: Management over Lossy/Intermittent Links: In the future of military operations, the standard management will be done over lossy and intermittent links and ideally the Fixed NOC will become mobile. In this architecture, the nature and current quality Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 32] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 of each link are distinct. However, there are a number of issues that would arise and need to be addressed: 1. Common and specific configurations are undefined: A. When mass-configuring devices, common set of configurations are undefined at this time. B. Similarly, when performing a specific device, set of specific configurations is unknown. 2. Once the total number of units becomes quite large, scalability would be an issue and need to be addressed. 3. The state of the devices are different and may be in various states of operations, e.g., ON/OFF, etc. 4. Pushing large data files over reliable transport, e.g., TCP, would be problematic. Would a new mechanism of transmitting large configurations over the air in low bandwidth be implemented? Which protocol would be used at transport layer? 5. How to validate network configuration (and local configuration) is complex, even when to cutover is an interesting question. 6. Security as a general issue needs to be addressed as it could be problematic in military operations. +---------+ +----------+ | Mobile |<----------->| router_1 | | NOC |?--+ +----------+ +---------+ | ^ | +----------+ | +------->| router_2 | | +----------+ | 0 | 0 | 0 | +----------+ +---------------->| router_N | +----------+ Figure 4: Management over Lossy/intermittent Links Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 33] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 4. Requirements on the Management of Networks with Constrained Devices This section describes the requirements categorized by management areas listed in subsections. The requirements in this section are subject for discussion on the Coman maillist. Note that the requirements in this section need to be seen as standalone requirements. A device might be able to provide selected requirements but might not be capable to provide all requirements at once. On the other hand a device vendor might select a subset of the requirements to implement. As of today this document does not recommend the realization of a profile of requirements. Following template is used for the definition of the requirements. 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. Requirement Type: Functional Requirement, Non-Functional Requirement, Design Constraint Device type: The device types by which this requirement can be supported: C0, C1 and/or C2. Priority: The priority of the requirement showing the importance: Mandatory (M), Optional (O), Conditional (C). 4.1. Management Architecture/System Req-ID: 4.1.001 Title: Support multiple device classes within a single network. Description: Larger networks usually are made up of devices belonging to different device classes (e.g., constrained mesh endpoints and less constrained routers) that work together. Hence, the management architecture must be applicable to networks that have a mix of different device classes. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 34] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Source: All use cases. Requirement Type: Non-Functional Requirement Device type: Managing and intermediary entities. Priority: Mandatory --- Req-ID: 4.1.002 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 huge amount 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: Design Constraint Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Priority: Mandatory --- Req-ID: 4.1.003 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 provide a caching mechanism for the uplink and downlink communication. Hierarchical management contributes to management scalability. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 35] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Source: Use cases where a huge amount of devices are deployed with a hierarchical topology. Requirement Type: Non-Functional Requirement Device type: Managing and intermediary entities. Priority: Optional --- Req-ID: 4.1.004 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. 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: Non-Functional Requirement Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Priority: Mandatory --- Req-ID: 4.1.005 Title: Support devices that are not always online. Description: Constrained devices often duty cycle their radio or the whole device in order to save energy. The management system must not assume that constrained devices are always reachable. Intermediaries may be used that provide information for devices currently inactive or that take responsibility to re-synchronize devices when they become reachable again after an extended offline period. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 36] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Source: All use cases where a device e.g. needs to be set to sleep mode. Requirement Type: Design Constraint Device type: Managing and intermediary entities. Priority: Mandatory --- Req-ID: 4.1.006 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: Mandatory --- Req-ID: 4.1.007 Title: Support for lossy and unreliable links. Description: Some constrained devices will only be able to support lossy and unreliable links characterized by a limited data rate, a high latency, and a high transmission error rate. The management protocol(s) must act gracefully with such issues and provide a high degree of resilience. Source: Basic requirement for constrained networks with unreliable links and constrained devices with an unreliable radio. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 37] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Requirement Type: Design Constraint Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Priority: Mandatory --- Req-ID: 4.1.008 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. 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. 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. Source: In general all use cases, which want to configure the network and its devices based on a network view in a top-down manner. Requirement Type: Non-Functional Requirement Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Priority: Optional --- Req-ID: 4.1.009 Title: Distributed Management Description: Provide a means of simple distributed management, where a constrained network 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 Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 38] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 requirement implies the handling of data consistency in case of concurrent read and write access to the device datastore. Source: Use cases where the count of devices to manage is high. Requirement Type: Non-Functional Requirement Device type: C1 and C2 Priority: Optional 4.2. Management protocols and data model Req-ID: 4.2.001 Title: Enabling modular implementations of management protocols with a basic set of protocol primitives. Description: Management protocols should allow 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. It should be possible to discover the management protocol primitives by a device. Source: Basic requirement interesting for all use cases. Requirement Type: Non-Functional Requirement Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Priority: Mandatory --- Req-ID: 4.2.002 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 bandwith. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 39] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Priority: Mandatory --- Req-ID: 4.2.003 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. As such, this requirement is marked as optional. Source: Use cases where it is beneficial to reduce transmission time and bandwith, e.g. mobile applications which require to save on- air bandwith. Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C1 and C2 Priority: Optional --- Req-ID: 4.2.004 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. Hence this requirement is marked optional for device class C2. Source: Use cases where high-frequent interaction with the management system of a non-constrained network is required. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 40] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C2 Priority: Optional --- Req-ID: 4.2.005 Title: Consistency of data models with the underlying information model. 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: Mandatory --- Req-ID: 4.2.006 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. Hence this requirement is marked optional for device class C2. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 41] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 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: Optional --- Req-ID: 4.2.007 Title: Protocol extensibility Description: Provide means of extensibility for the management protocol, i.e. the mechanisms that can deal with the changing requirements on the supported message and data types effectively without causing inter-operability problems or having to replace/ update large amounts of deployed devices. Source: Basic requirement useful for all use cases. Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Priority: Mandatory 4.3. Configuration management Req-ID: 4.3.001 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. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 42] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 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: Mandatory for C0 and C1, Optional for C2. --- Req-ID: 4.3.002 Title: Enable Peer Configuration Description: The device can obtain its configuration from peer devices, in case a management (configuration) server is not accessible, or the device cannot be accessed by management applications Source: Use cases where accessibility by a centralized management station or access to managing entities is not granted by the architecture of the solution or deployment strategy. Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Priority: Conditional --- Req-ID: 4.3.003 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. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 43] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C1 and C2 Priority: Optional --- Req-ID: 4.3.004 Title: Asynchronous Transaction Support Description: Provide configuration management with asynchronous transaction support. Configuration operations must support a transactional model, with asynchronous indications that the transaction was completed. Source: Use cases, which require transaction-oriented processing because of reliability or distributed architecture functional requirements. Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C1 and C2 Priority: Conditional --- Req-ID: 4.3.005 Title: Network reconfiguration Description: Provide a means of network reconfiguration in order to recover the network functionality from node and communication faults. Source: Practically all use cases, as network connectivity is a basic requirement. Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Priority: Mandatory --- Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 44] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Req-ID: 4.3.006 Title: Automatic reconfiguration of hierarchical networks Description: Provide the iterative and automatic reconfiguration of the whole hierarchical network of constrained devices to allow the network to recover from faults and failures. The requirement includes the recovery of the hierarchical structure (topology). Source: All use cases that involve a hierarchical topology (the exception may be Community Networks or other environments that involve flat and mesh topologies). Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Priority: Conditional (conditioned by the hierarchical structure of the network) 4.4. Monitoring functionality Req-ID: 4.4.001 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 data caching mechanism. Source: All use cases Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Priority: Mandatory --- Req-ID: 4.4.002 Title: Energy status monitoring Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 45] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Description: Provide a monitoring function to collect and expose information about device energy parameters and usage (e.g. battery level and communication power). Source: Use case Energy Management Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Priority: Mandatory for energy reporting devices, Optional for the rest --- Req-ID: 4.4.003 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: Optional --- Req-ID: 4.4.004 Title: Network status monitoring Description: Provide a monitoring function to collect and expose information related to the status of a network or network segments connected to the interfaces of the device. Source: All use cases. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 46] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C1 and C2 Priority: Optional --- Req-ID: 4.4.005 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: Optional --- Req-ID: 4.4.006 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 and self-healing is required. Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C1 and C2 Priority: Mandatory for C2, Optional for C1 --- Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 47] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Req-ID: 4.4.007 Title: Neighbor-monitoring Description: Provide a means of neighbor-monitoring (fault detection in local network) for fast fault detection and recovery to support e.g. the scenario that only a neighbor is able to detect whether a device is not accessible. Source: Use cases where the devices cannot be monitored centrally. Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C1 and C2 Priority: Optional --- Req-ID: 4.4.008 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 Device type: C2 Priority: Optional --- Req-ID: 4.4.009 Title: Notifications Description: The device will provide the capability of sending notifications on critical events and faults. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 48] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Source: All use cases. Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Priority: Mandatory for C2, Optional for C1 --- Req-ID: 4.4.010 Title: Logging 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: Mandatory for some medical or industrial applications, Optional otherwise --- Req-ID: 4.4.011 Title: Performance Monitoring Description: The device will provide a monitoring function to collect and expose information about the basic TBD performance 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 Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 49] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Priority: Optional --- Req-ID: 4.4.012 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. Source: Use cases Environmental Monitoring, Building Automation, Energy Management, Infrastructure Monitoring Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C0, C1 and C2 Priority: Optional --- Req-ID: 4.4.013 Title: Passive Monitoring Description: The device will provide passive monitoring capabilities. The system collects information about device components and network states. It may perform postmortem analysis of data. Source: Use cases Environmental Monitoring, Medical Applications, Infrastructure Monitoring Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C2 Priority: Optional --- Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 50] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Req-ID: 4.4.014 Title: Reactive Monitoring Description: The system will provide reactive monitoring capabilities. The system collects information about network states to detect whether events of interest have occurred and then adaptively react, e.g. reconfigure the network. Typically actions (re-actions) will be executed or sent as commands by the management applications. Source: Medical and Industrial Applications, Home and Building Automation Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C2 Priority: Optional 4.5. Self-management Req-ID: 4.5.001 Title: Event-driven self-management - Self-healing Description: Enable event-driven self-management functionality in a device, i.e. the device should be able to react in case of failure e.g. by initiating a fully or partly reset and initiate a self- configuration as necessary. It is a matter of device design and subject for discussion how much self-management a class 1 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: Optional --- Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 51] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Req-ID: 4.5.002 Title: Periodic self-management. Description: Enable periodic self-management functionality, i.e. a device should be 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 logic for failure detection and self-management is assumed to be generally useful for the self-healing of a device in general. Source: The requirement generally relates to all use cases in this document. Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C1 and C2 Priority: Optional 4.6. Security and Access Control Req-ID: 4.6.001 Title: Authentication of management systems. Description: Systems having a management role must be properly authenticated to the device such that the device can exercise proper access control and in particular distinguish rightful management systems from rogue systems. Source: Basic security requirement for all use cases. Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Priority: Mandatory --- Req-ID: 4.6.002 Title: Authentication of managed devices. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 52] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Description: Managed devices must authenticate themselves to systems having a management role such that management systems can protect themselves from rogue devices. Source: Basic security requirement for all use cases. Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Priority: Mandatory --- Req-ID: 4.6.003 Title: Access control on managed constrained devices. Description: 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: Mandatory --- Req-ID: 4.6.004 Title: Access control on management systems. 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 an access control white list of known devices). Source: Basic security requirement for use cases where access control is essential. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 53] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Priority: Mandatory --- Req-ID: 4.6.005 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 add them to access control lists. Source: Basic security requirement for all use cases. Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Priority: Mandatory --- Req-ID: 4.6.006 Title: Enable the authentication of a large number of devices at system start. Description: In certain application scenarios, it is possible that a large number of devices (re)start 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: Use cases where large number of devices need to be started at once. Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Priority: Optional --- Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 54] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Req-ID: 4.6.007 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 (like some elliptic curve algorithm) that are reasonable to implement with the available code space and that have a small impact at runtime. 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: Mandatory --- Req-ID: 4.6.008 Title: Select cryptographic algorithms that are to be supported in hardware. Description: Some wireless technologies (e.g., IEEE 802.15.4) require the support of certain cryptographic algorithms. Wireless chipsets often implement these algorithms in hardware on the transceiver. Certain chipsets expose an interface allowing the application logic to call the cryptographic algorithms implemented in hardware on the transceiver, leading to hardware support for higher layer security functions. As such, when selecting cryptographic protocols, it is useful to choose algorithms that are likely to be supported by certain wireless technologies. Source: Generic requirement to enable fast execution of cryptographic algorithms as well as to reduce the footprint of a constrained device. Requirement Type: Non-Functional Requirement Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 55] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Priority: Optional 4.7. Energy Management Req-ID: 4.7.001 Title: Management of Energy Resources 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). Source: Use case Energy Management Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Priority: Mandatory for the use case Energy Management, Optional otherwise. --- Req-ID: 4.7.002 Title: Support for layer 2 energy-aware protocols 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: Functional Requirement Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Priority: Optional --- Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 56] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Req-ID: 4.7.003 Title: Data models for energy management Description: The device will implement standard data models for energy management and expose it through a management protocol interface, e.g. EMAN MIB modules and extensions. It would be ncessary to downscale EMAN MIBs for the use in C1 and C2 devices. Source: Use case Energy Management Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C1 and C2 Priority: Optional --- Req-ID: 4.7.004 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: Optional --- Req-ID: 4.7.005 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). Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 57] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Source: Use cases Energy Management and Mobile Applications. Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C2 Priority: Optional 4.8. SW Distribution Req-ID: 4.8.001 Title: Software distribution Description: Support group-based firmware update of large set of constrained devices, with eventual consistency and coordinated reload times. Source: All use cases. Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Priority: Mandatory for basic operation, Optional for consistency checks, scheduling, and coordination --- Req-ID: 4.8.002 Title: Group-based provisioning Description: The device will accept configuration management and firmware update commands based upon bulk commands which aim similar configurations of all devices of the same type in a given group of devices. Activation of configuration may be based on pre-loaded sets of default values. Source: Use cases Community Network Applications and Mobile Applications Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 58] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Priority: Optional 4.9. Traffic management Req-ID: 4.9.001 Title: Congestion avoidance Description: Provide 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 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: Design Constraint Device type: C1 and C2 Priority: Optional --- Req-ID: 4.9.002 Title: Redirect 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: Design Constraint Device type: Intermediary entity in the network. Priority: Optional --- Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 59] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Req-ID: 4.9.003 Title: Traffic delay schemes. Description: Provide the ability to apply delay schemes 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: Design Constraint Device type: Intermediary entity in the network. Priority: Optional 4.10. Transport Layer Req-ID: 4.10.001 Title: Scalable transport layer Description: Enable the use of a scalable transport layer, i.e. not sensitive to the decrease of the time between two 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: Design Constraint Device type: C0, C1 and C2 Priority: Conditional, in case such scalability is a prerequisite. --- Req-ID: 4.10.002 Title: Reliable unicast transport. Description: Provide reliable unicast transport of messages. Source: Generally all applications benefit from the reliability of the message transport. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 60] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Requirement Type: Functional Requirement Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Priority: Mandatory --- Req-ID: 4.10.003 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: Optional Req-ID: 4.10.004 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 Device type: C1 and C2 Priority: Mandatory Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 61] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 4.11. Implementation Requirements Req-ID: 4.11.001 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 often more desirable to a large transaction down into a sequence of smaller transactions, which 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: Design Constraint Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Priority: Mandatory Req-ID: 4.11.002 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. Source: Basic requirement which concerns all use cases with memory constrained devices. Requirement Type: Design Constraint Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 62] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Device type: C0, C1, and C2 Priority: Mandatory Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 63] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 5. Gaps in Network Management Standards Higlight here the gaps in network management standards. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 64] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 6. 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. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 65] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 7. Security Considerations This document discusses the use cases and requirements on the network of constrained devices. If specific requirements for security will be identified, they will be described in future versions of this document. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 66] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 8. Contributors Following persons made significant contributions to and reviewed this document: o Ulrich Herberg (Fujitsu Laboratories of America) contributed the Section 3.9 on Community Network Applications. o Peter van der Stok contributed to Section 3.5 on Building Automation. o Zhen Cao contributed to Section 3.10 on Mobile Applications. o Gilman Tolle contributed the Section 3.11 on Automated Metering Infrastructure. o James Nguyen and Ulrich Herberg contributed the Section 3.12 on MANET Concept of Operations (CONOPS) in Military. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 67] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 9. Acknowledgments The editors would like to thank participants on the maillist for their valuable contributions and comments. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 68] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 10. References 10.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 10.2. Informative References [RFC6632] Ersue, M. and B. Claise, "An Overview of the IETF Network Management Standards", RFC 6632, June 2012. [RFC6130] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., and J. Dean, "Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)", RFC 6130, April 2011. [I-D.ietf-manet-olsrv2] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg, "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2", draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-17 (work in progress), October 2012. [I-D.ietf-manet-nhdp-mib] Herberg, U., Cole, R., and I. Chakeres, "Definition of Managed Objects for the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol", draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-19 (work in progress), September 2012. [I-D.ietf-lwig-guidance] Bormann, C., "Guidance for Light-Weight Implementations of the Internet Protocol Suite", draft-ietf-lwig-guidance-02 (work in progress), August 2012. [I-D.ietf-core-coap] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., Bormann, C., and B. Frank, "Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", draft-ietf-core-coap-12 (work in progress), October 2012. [I-D.ietf-eman-framework] Claise, B., Parello, J., Silver, L., Quittek, J., and B. Nordman, "Energy Management Framework", draft-ietf-eman-framework-05 (work in progress), July 2012. [I-D.ietf-eman-requirements] Quittek, J., Chandramouli, M., Winter, R., Dietz, T., and B. Claise, "Requirements for Energy Management", draft-ietf-eman-requirements-09 (work in progress), Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 69] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 October 2012. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 70] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Appendix A. Related Development in other Bodies Note that over time the summary on the related work in other bodies might become outdated. A.1. ETSI TC M2M ETSI Technical Committee Machine-to-Machine (ETSI TC M2M) aims to provide an end-to-end view of M2M standardization, which enables the integration of multiple vertical M2M applications. The main goal is to overcome the current M2M market fragmentation and to reuse existing mechanisms from telecom standards such as from OMA or 3GPP. ETSI Release 1 is functionally frozen. The main focus is on use cases for Smart Metering (Technical Report (TR) 102 691) but it also includes eHealth use cases (TR 102 732) and some others. The Service requirements (Technical Standard (TS) 102 689) derived from the use cases, and the functional architecture specification (TS 102 690), will together define the M2M platform. The architecture consists of Service Capabilities (SC), which are basic functional building blocks for building the M2M platform. Smart Metering is seen as the important showcase for M2M. It is believed that the Service Enablers that were defined based on the work done for Smart Metering and eHealth segments will also allow the building of other services like vending machines, alarm systems etc. The functional architecture includes following management-related definitions: o Network Management Functions: consists of all functions required to manage the Access, Transport and Core networks: these include Provisioning, Supervision, Fault Management, etc. o M2M Management Functions: consists of functions required to manage generic functionalities of M2M Applications and M2M Service Capabilities in the Network and Applications Domain. The management of the M2M Devices and Gateways may use specific M2M Service Capabilities. The Release 2 work of ETSI TC M2M has started beginning of 2012. Following is a list of networking- and management-related topics under work: o Interworking with 3GPP networks. This is a new work item, and no discussion has been held on technical details. The intent is to define which ETSI TC M2M functions are applicable when 3GPP NW is used as transport. It is possible that this work would also cover Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 71] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 details on how to use 3GPP interfaces, e.g. those defined in the SIMTC work, but also for charging and policy control. o Creating a Semantic Model or Data Abstraction layer for vertical industries and interworking. This would provide some high level information description that would be usable for interworking with local networks (e.g. ZigBee), and also for verticals, and it would allow the ETSI Service Enablement layer to also understand the data, instead of being just a bit storage and bit pipe. All technical details are still under discussion, but it has been agreed that a function for this exists in the architecture at least for interworking. A.2. OASIS Developments in OASIS related to management of constrained networks are following: o The Energy Interoperation TC works to define interaction between Smart Grids and their end nodes, including Smart Buildings, Enterprises, Industry, Homes, and Vehicles. The TC develops data and communication models that enable the interoperable and standard exchange of signals for dynamic pricing, reliability, and emergencies. The TC's agenda also extends to the communication of market participation data (such as bids), load predictability, and generation information. The first version of the Energy Interoperation specification is in final review. o OASIS Open Data Protocol (OData) aims to simplify the querying and sharing of data across disparate applications and multiple stakeholders for re-use in the enterprise, Cloud, and mobile devices. As a REST-based protocol, OData builds on HTTP, AtomPub, and JSON using URIs to address and access data feed resources. It enables information to be accessed from a variety of sources including (but not limited to) relational databases, file systems, content management systems, and traditional Web sites. o Open Building Information Exchange (oBIX) aims to enable the mechanical and electrical control systems in buildings to communicate with enterprise applications, and to provide a platform for developing new classes of applications that integrate control systems with other enterprise functions. Enterprise functions include processes such as Human Resources, Finance, Customer Relationship Management (CRM), and Manufacturing. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 72] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 A.3. OMA OMA is currently working on Lightweight M2M Enabler, OMA Device Management (OMA DM) Next Generation, and a white paper on M2M Device Classification. The Lightweight M2M Enabler covers both M2M device management and service management for constrained devices. In the case of less constrained devices, OMA DM Next Generation Enabler may be more appropriate. OMA DM is structured around Management Objects (MO), each specified for a specific purpose. There is also ongoing work with various other MOs such as the Gateway Management Object (GwMO). A draft for the "Lightweight M2M Requirements" is available. OMA Lightweight M2M and OMA DM Next Generation are important to M2M device management, provisioning and service managements in both the protocol and management objects. OMA Lightweight M2M work seems to have grown from its original scope of being targeted for very simple devices only, i.e. such that could not handle all those protocols that ETSI M2M requires. A.4. IPSO Alliance IPSO Alliance developed a profile for Device Functions supporting devices such as sensors with a limited user interface, where the configuration of even basic parameters is impossible to do manually. This is a challenge especially for consumer devices that are managed by non-professional users. The configuration of a web service application running on a constrained device goes beyond the autoconfiguration of the IP stack and local information (e.g. proxy address). Constrained devices need additionally service provider and user account related configuration, such as an address/locator and the username for a web server. IPSO discusses the use cases and requirements for user friendly configuration of such information on a constrained device, and specifies how IPSO profile Device Function Set can be used in the process. It furthermore defines a standard format for the basic application configuration information. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 73] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Appendix B. Related Research Projects o The EU project IoT-A (Internet-of-Things Architecture) develops an architectural reference model together with the definition of an initial set of key building blocks. These enable the integration of IoT into the service layer of the Future Internet, and realize a novel resolution infrastructure, as well as a network infrastructure that allows the seamless communication flow between IoT devices and services. The development includes a conceptual model of a smart object as well as a basic Internet of Things reference model defining the interaction and communication between IoT devices and relevant entities. The requirements document includes also network and information management requirements (see http://www.iot-a.eu/). o The EU project SENSEI specified the document on 'End to End Networking and Management' for Wireless Sensor and Actuator Networks. This report presents several research results carried out in SENSEI's tasks related to End-to-End Networking and Management. Particular analyses have been addressed related to naming and addressing of resources, management of resources, resource plug and play, resource level mobility and traffic modelling. The detailed analysis on each of these topics is intended to identify possible gaps between their specific mechanisms and the functional requirements in the SENSEI reference architecture (see http://www.sensei-project.eu/). o The EU project FI-WARE is developing the Things Management GE (generic enabler), which uses a data model derived from the OMA DM NGSI data model. Using the abstraction level of things which include non-technical things like rooms, places and people, Things Management GE aims to discover and look up IoT resources that can provide information about things or actuate on these things. The system aimes to manage the dynamic associations between IoT resources and things in order to allow internal components as well as external applications to interact with the system using the thing abstraction as the core concept (see http://www.fi-ware.eu/). o EU project BUTLER Smart Life discusses different IoT management aspects and collects requirements for smart life use cases (e.g. smart home or smart city) mainly from service management pov. (see http://www.iot-butler.eu/). Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 74] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Appendix C. Open issues o The terminology section needs to be further extended. o Class of networks considering the different type of radio and communication technologies in use, needs a discussion. o The discussion on the management of the constrainedness needs a discussion. o The current document provides management requirements categorized by management areas and matches the requirements to the device classes. It needs to be decided, whether a list of management features and matching the level of features to device classes and use cases is necessary. o Section 4 on the management requirements, as the core section in the document, needs further discussion and consolidation. o The term AMI PAN needs clarification. o A section higlighting the gaps in network management standards needs to be written. o The appendix on the work of other SDOs could be extended. Contributions are welcome. o The appendix on the work of related research projects could be extended. Contributions are welcome. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 75] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Appendix D. Change Log D.1. 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 4 need to be seen as standalone requirements and the current document does not recommend any profile of requirements. o Added Section 4 on the detailed requirements on constrained management matched to management tasks like fault, monitoring, 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. D.2. 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. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 76] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 o Extended the section on 'Medical Applications'. o Solved nits and added references. Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 77] Internet-Draft Constrained Mgmt: Use Cases, Requirements October 2012 Authors' Addresses Mehmet Ersue (editor) Nokia Siemens Networks Email: mehmet.ersue@nsn.com Dan Romascanu (editor) Avaya Email: dromasca@avaya.com Juergen Schoenwaelder (editor) Jacobs University Bremen Email: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Ersue, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 78]