F36-RI: No
Rationale
RPL permits routing instances with different optimization goals, but RFC 6550 section 3.1.3 leaves mapping an application traffic service to an instance outside its scope. The selected OF0 computes rank and chooses parents from provisioned/link parameters; it ignores metric containers. This is routing optimization, not application-requested flow admission and resource allocation. The declared UDP/DTLS and 6LoWPAN composition adds no such service-mapping or reservation mechanism.
Assessment method
Bounded documentary assessment of selected service interface and admission semantics
Source context
Linux v6.12 control/transport interfaces; RPL RFC 6550 and OF0 RFC 6552
Outstanding qualification
No concerns this explicit OF0/UDP/DTLS profile, not all RPL objective functions or IEEE 802.15.4 scheduling extensions. Routing constraints and link-security configuration do not supply the missing application-to-service allocation contract. No energy or performance test is claimed.
Public sources
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6550.html#section-3.1.3
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6552.html#section-1
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6552.html#section-5
Editorial evidence references
The following identifiers refer to research records not included in this public package; they are not public links.
- round704.html