IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networks
charter-ietf-lpwan-03

# Internet AD comments for charter-ietf-lpwan-02-00
CC @ekline

## Comment

### meta

* Seems like another choice is to close LPWAN and charter a new SHCH WG.

### P3, #6

* What does "rule installation" actually mean?  The application of a rule
  by an end node (operation system), or the addition of a new rule in a
  control plane "state machine" negotiation between two (or more) endpoints,
  or ... something else?

+1 to Erik's comment that "Seems like another choice is to close LPWAN and charter a new SHCH WG". It makes me slightly sad that if the focus of the group is no longer Low-Power Wide-Area Networks, even though they are one important consumer of the group's output, the group is still called... "Low Power Wide-Area Networks". 

But "naming things" is famously one of the two hard problems.

Please add milestones for the new work via the datatracker milestone feature.

The charter's opening paragraph mentions UDP tunnels but bullet 3 in the new work is missing it, is that intentional?

In the TSV area, we are enabling QUIC tunneling of UDP and IP packets towards proxies. I was wondering if this be related here to consider as SCHC usage is expanding and if TSV area should also be in the collaborator list or not.

# GEN AD review of charter-ietf-lpwan-02-00

CC @larseggert

## Comments

### Section 6, paragraph 2
```
  The LPWAN WG will collaborate with INTAREA WG for the IP protocol type
  definition and with with other WGs for possible Protocols-over-SCHC activities.
  It will work with the relevant Security Area WGs to secure the SCHC session
  appropriately.
```
This statement IMO needs to be a stronger, i.e., that this work will be done in
cooperation with the WGs/SDOs that maintain these other layers, with an emphasis
on nothing will be adopted in LPWAN until there is common agreement.

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Paragraph 0
```
- technology to  Low-Power Wide-Area (LPWA) and non-LPWA networks, including Low
-            ^^^
+ technology in Low-Power Wide-Area (LPWA) and non-LPWA networks, including Low
+            ^^
```

#### Paragraph 0
```
- includes but is not limited to UDP tunnels, IP, PPP, and Ethernet.
-        -     ^^
+ include but are not limited to UDP tunnels, IP, PPP, and Ethernet.
+             ^^^
```

#### Paragraph 1
```
- packets. For instance, the INT-AREA WG is working on a SCHC protocol type for
-                               -
```

#### "IP", paragraph 0
```
- provide standard track specifications for a SCHC Header that conveys the SCHC
+ provide standards track specifications for a SCHC Header that conveys the SCHC
+                 +
```

### Grammar/style

#### "A", paragraph 0
```
etween the pair of endpoints in a secure fashion. The group will also work on
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Consider replacing this phrase with the adverb "securely" to avoid wordiness.

#### Section 6, paragraph 1
```
e IP protocol type definition and with with other WGs for possible Protocols-
                                  ^^^^^^^^^
```
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

Please expand SCHC on first use.