Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) Ultra Low Energy (ULE)
draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule-09

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, "Marco van de Logt" , "Jens Petersen" , "Zach Shelby" , "Peter Mariager" , "Dominique Barthel"

[Ballot comment]
I really appreciate the authors taking time to provide this much background for their specification.

I did finish with some questions and comments, but if I understood the technology better, I'd be balloting Yes.

Could I suggest replacing "an elderly pendant (brooch)" with "a pendant (brooch) for the elderly"?

Because I was already picturing a very old brooch, I also misread "Generic Access Profile" as "Geriatric Access Profile" further down the page, but there's nothing you can do to fix that ;-)

In this text,

  The used application protocol is negotiated
  between the PP and FP when the PVC communication service is
  established. 

I think you can delete "used", unless "used application protocol" is a term of art for DECT-ULA.

In this text,

  A FP is assumed to be less constrained than a PP.  Hence, in the
  primary scenario FP and PP will act as 6LBR and a 6LN, respectively.
  This document only addresses this primary scenario and all other
  scenarios are out of scope.

Does "all other scenarios" just mean "scenarios where FPs are more constrained than PPs"? If so, that might be clearer.

In this text,

  In
  consequence, the mesh header defined in [RFC4944] for mesh under
  routing are not used in DECT ULE networks.

the term "mesh under routing" doesn't appear in RFC 4944. Did this mean something like "mesh underlay routing"? But if the point is that the mesh header defined in RFC 4944 isn't used, that's probably all you need to say.

In this text,

  Although the
  TPUI is temporary by definition, the same value is usually repeatedly
  assigned to any given PP, hence it seems not suitable for
  construction of IID, see [I-D.ietf-6lo-privacy-considerations].

is this saying

  Although the
  TPUI is temporary by definition, many implementations assign the
  the same value repeatedly to any given PP, hence it seems not suitable for
  construction of IID, see [I-D.ietf-6lo-privacy-considerations].

?

This may be my own lack of knowlesge at fault, but I'm not sure I understand this text,

  It is expected that the LOWPAN_IPHC packet will fulfil all the
  requirements for header compression without spending unnecessary
  overhead for mesh addressing.

I'm guessing that the point is that you don't have to put the mesh header in, to make header compression perform acceptably. Is that it?

I think

  The DECT ULE implements already fragmentation and
  reassembly functionality, hence [RFC4944] fragmentation and
  reassembly function MUST NOT be used.

should s/implements already/already implements/

Probably for my own education, but in this text

  Globally uniqueness of IID in link-local addresses are not required
  as they should never be leaked outside the subnet domain.

if those addresses are leaked, does IPv6 Duplicate Address Detection prevent the obvious problems?

Could you add a few words explaining why

  The DECT MAC layer broadcast service is considered inadequate for IP
  multicast.

so the reader isn't left to guess?

[Ballot comment]
I support Alissa's comment on privacy

The SecDir review didn't get a response as far as I can tell.  Simon had a question and a nit.  I think the draft is okay on those points, but a response for the review would be good.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/3E1g-Ccfeq6U0fWcxc5kQ3FL_3w

[Ballot comment]

section 3, last para: "PP node MUST NOT play the role of a
6LoWPAN Router (6LR)." I reckon that's a bogus MUST NOT.
I think what you mean is that this spec doesn't define how
a PP can be a 6LR. But a bit of h/w and s/w can clearly do
both no matter how many MUST NOTs we write. (That may be a
difference to the usual DECT setup, not sure.)

[Ballot comment]
I agree with Alissa's comments. Otherwise, I just have a few nits:

- Abstract: Please expand DECT.

- section 1: The section could benefit from some paragraph breaks.

- 3.2, first paragraph: s/ "implements already fragmentation"/"already implements fragmentation"
-- 4th paragraph:
s/"PP each have"/"each PP has"

[Ballot comment]
I support Alissa's comment on privacy and am linking in the SecDir review that I don't see a response and will look at this again a little later - sorry interrupted reading - saving and not sending this.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/3E1g-Ccfeq6U0fWcxc5kQ3FL_3w

[Ballot comment]
(1) draft-ietf-6lo-privacy-considerations says:

"Specifications should make sure that an IPv6 address can change
    over long periods of time.  For example, the interface identifier
    might change each time a device connects to the network (if
    connections are short), or might change each day (if connections
    can be long).  This is necessary to mitigate correlation over
    time."

This document doesn't seem to provide any guidance about supporting the
ability to change an IPv6 address. At least for non-link-local addresses, I think it would make sense to encourage the use of address generation schemes that align with the recommendation above given expected deployment scenarios.

(2) draft-ietf-6man-default-iids says that the choice of address
generation mechanism should be configurable when a mechanism is specified
to embed a link layer address in an IID. Is there a reason that doesn't
apply here? The document doesn't say anything about it for the link-local
case.

[Ballot comment]
One tiny comment:
This sounds like a summary of what's specified in TS102.939-1 and therefore should probably not use normative language in this doc:
"In DECT protocol domain the PP SHALL specify the <> in a service-change (other) message before sending a
  service-change (resume) message as defined in [TS102.939-1].  The
  <> SHALL define the ULE Application Protocol
  Identifier to 0x06 and the MTU size to 1280 octets or larger.  The FP
  sends a service-change-accept (resume) that MUST contain a valid
  paging descriptor.  The PP MUST be pageable.  Following this,
  transmission of IPv6 packets can start."

[Ballot comment]
3.1.  Protocol Stack

  In order to enable data transmission over DECT ULE, a Permanent
  Virtual Circuit (PVC) has to be configured and opened between FP and
  PP.  This is done by setting up a DECT service call between PP and
  FP.  In DECT protocol domain the PP SHALL specify the <> in a service-change (other) message before sending a
  service-change (resume) message as defined in [TS102.939-1].  The
  <>

Typo: IWU-ATTRIBUTES

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule-07.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, "Marco van de Logt" , "Jens Petersen" , "Zach Shelby" , "Peter Mariager" , "Dominique Barthel"

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule@ietf.org, samitac.ietf@gmail.com, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, "Samita Chakrabarti" , 6lo@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Transmission of IPv6 Packets over DECT Ultra Low Energy) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 over Networks of
Resource-constrained Nodes WG (6lo) to consider the following document:
- 'Transmission of IPv6 Packets over DECT Ultra Low Energy'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-12-02. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  DECT Ultra Low Energy is a low power air interface technology that is
  defined by the DECT Forum and specified by ETSI.

  The DECT air interface technology has been used world-wide in
  communication devices for more than 20 years, primarily carrying
  voice for cordless telephony but has also been deployed for data
  centric services.

  The DECT Ultra Low Energy is a recent addition to the DECT interface
  primarily intended for low-bandwidth, low-power applications such as
  sensor devices, smart meters, home automation etc.  As the DECT Ultra
  Low Energy interface inherits many of the capabilities from DECT, it
  benefits from long range, interference free operation, world wide
  reserved frequency band, low silicon prices and maturity.  There is
  an added value in the ability to communicate with IPv6 over DECT ULE
  such as for Internet of Things applications.

  This document describes how IPv6 is transported over DECT ULE using
  6LoWPAN techniques.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, "Marco van de Logt" , "Jens Petersen" , "Zach Shelby" , "Peter Mariager" , "Dominique Barthel"

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, "Marco van de Logt" , "Jens Petersen" , "Zach Shelby" , "Peter Mariager" , "Dominique Barthel"

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental
, or Historic)?

A1: Draft name: draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule-05.  Standards track [ Proposed Standard]

Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

A2:
draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over DECT Ultra Low Energy" specifies IPv6 transport
over DECT Ultra Low Energy air interface based on subset of specification defined in RFC4944, RFC6282, RFC6775.
The specification defines the low power optimized IPv6 adaptation layer specification for addressing model,
MTU configuration, IPv6 auto-configuration etc. This document is the right category for the standards track.


Yes, the document title page indicates being 'standard track'.


(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  The DECT Ultra Low Energy is an addition to the DECT interface
  primarily intended for low-bandwidth, low-power applications such as
  sensor devices, smart meters, home automation etc.  As the DECT Ultra
  Low Energy interface inherits many of the capabilities from DECT, it
  benefits from long range, interference free operation, world wide
  reserved frequency band, low silicon prices and maturity.  There is
  an added value in the ability to communicate with IPv6 over DECT ULE
  such as for Internet of Things applications. As an example, the technology could be
  integrated with residential gateway.
  DECT-ULE deployment typically use application profile based  protocol support and
  6lo-over-dect-ule is one of them. The differences between 6loWPAN(IPv6-over-IEEE802.15.4) and
  this specification are that DECT-ULE only supports Star topology, a 40-bit unique ID among DECT
  devices, optional MAC-48 bit assignment, larger MTU size than IEEE802.15.4 and thus different requirements
  for fragmentation and re-assembly.
  The document also shows a mechansim for deriving the 64-bit IID in order to form an IPv6 address and
  subsets of RFC6775, Header compression.
  The draft discusses privacy considerations and possible randomly generated IID support.



Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their
plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done
a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had
no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its
course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

A.
The document has been reviewed over the 6lo WG mailing list (Kerry Lynn, Ralph Droms, Samita Chakrabarti,
Gabriel Montenegro) and the comments were addressed. A critical comment for the document was to remove
reference of globally unique 64-bit  IID when it is derived from 40bit DECT unique id, which was taken care
in version 05.

The chairs have been informed that RTX and Gigaset have implementations on the draft. An open source
implementation might be available via ULE alliance.


http://rethink-wireless.com/2015/09/02/with-dect-win-alljoyn-leads-iot-framework-race/

DECT-ULE and IP access device support:

Gigaset elements:
https://www.gigaset-elements.com/en/

Deutsche Telekom:
http://telematik-markt.de/telematik/deutsche-telekom-und-dsp-group-starten-dect-ule-f%C3%BCr-smart-home-solutions#.U5lyMHZmPJs

AVM Fritz:
http://www.avm.de/de/Presse/Informationen/2012/2012_03_06_smarthome.php3

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document shepherd: Samita Chakrabarti
Responsible Area Director: Suresh Krishnan

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd.
If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document
is being forwarded to the IESG.

A.
The document has been reviewed by the document shepherd and other technical experts in the WG.
The document is in good shape.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?
A.
No. It has been reviewed by a number of WG members and co-chairs of 6lo.


(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security,
operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took
place.
A. Not applicable

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the
Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is
uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In
any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the
document, detail those concerns here.

A The document is ready to advance.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance
with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

A. Yes the document authors confirmed that they are aware about the IETF rules. The document authors have been
informed by the shepherd about the IPR rule. There is no IPR statements made at the data tracker draft site.





(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion
and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

A. Please see above. No IPR statements are available on this document; the draft authors are unaware
of any IPR on this document.



(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

A. The WG as a whole understands and agrees. The document has been around for sometime and received many
comments.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise
the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

A. Not aware of any discontent.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not
enough; this check needs to be thorough.

A. None.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor,
media type, and URI type reviews.

A. Not applicable.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

A. Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an
unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

A. Not applicable. All normative references are RFCs or ETSI documents.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references
to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

A. No. [ Assuming RFC 2119 is allowed in normative section ]

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the
title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in
the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of
this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG
considers it unnecessary.

A. This document specifies transmission of IPv6 packets over DECT ULE, though it uses RFC4944,
RFC6282 and RFC6775 as reference points it does not update them.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its
consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries
have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of
the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and
a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

A. The document does not request any IANA change.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public
guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

A. Not applicable

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the
document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

A. Not applicable.