Low-Power Wide Area Network (LPWAN) Overview
draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-10

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8376, changed title to 'Low-Power Wide Area Network (LPWAN) Overview', changed abstract to 'Low-Power Wide Area Networks (LPWANs) are wireless technologies with characteristics such as large coverage areas, low bandwidth, possibly very small packet and application-layer data sizes, and long battery life operation.  This memo is an informational overview of the set of LPWAN technologies being considered in the IETF and of the gaps that exist between the needs of those technologies and the goal of running IP in LPWANs.', changed standardization level to Informational, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2018-05-31, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
What's the relation of this document to draft-ietf-lwig-energy-efficient-08?

Some minor, mostly editorial comments:

1) While this document provides a good overview, I find section 2 more extensive than needed for the gap analysis; on the other hand section 2.2 (NB-IoT) does not really talk about security functions/encryption while the other sections do that.

2) "Text here is largely from [I-D.farrell-lpwan-lora-overview]" and " Text here is largely from [I-D.ratilainen-lpwan-nb-iot]" and so one
I would suggest to remove these sentences with references to expired drafts (given the contributions are listed in sec 7 again).

3) In sec 2.2.2 there is this fragment that can potentially be removed: "User plane protocol stack"

4) Section 2.4.2: "The Transport service is based on User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
  defined in RFC768 or Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) defined in
  RFC793."
  Does this mean one can only use UDP or TCP over IPv6 over 6LoWPAN over FAN but no other transport protocols? I assume that's not the case and would recommend to just remove this sentence (and the reference in the table).

5) Seems slightly weird to me that TLS is mentioned in a section called "4.1.  Naive application of IPv6"

6) I guess another challenge regarding security might be to update/upgrade such devices over a low bandwidth network, but that might a topic on its own...

[Ballot comment]
What the relation of this document to draft-ietf-lwig-energy-efficient-08?

Minor, mostly editorial comments:

1) While this document provides a good overview, I find section 2 more extensive than needed for the gap analysis; on the other hand section 2.2 (NB-IoT) does not really talk about security functions/encryption while the other sections do that.

2) "Text here is largely from [I-D.farrell-lpwan-lora-overview]" and " Text here is largely from [I-D.ratilainen-lpwan-nb-iot]" and so one
I would suggest to remove these sentences with references to expired drafts (given the contributions are listed in sec 7 again).

3) In sec 2.2.2 there is this fragment that can potentially be removed: "User plane protocol stack"

4) Section 2.4.2: "The Transport service is based on User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
  defined in RFC768 or Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) defined in
  RFC793."
  Does this mean one can only use UDP or TCP over IPv6 over 6LoWPAN over FAN but no other transport protocols? I assume that's not the case and would recommend to just remove this sentence (and the reference in the table).

5) Seems slightly weird to me that TLS is mentioned in a section called "4.1.  Naive application of IPv6"

6) I guess another challenge regarding security might be to update/upgrade such devices over a low bandwidth network, but that might a topic on its own...

[Ballot comment]
Overall I liked this document -- I do however have some suggestions/nits which I think would improve the document.

1: I think it would be helpful to explain in the introduction how an LPWAN is different (other than the obvious "it's bigger") than a low power LAN / PAN -- after reading the document I'm still not quite sure if there is a fundamental difference.

2: A few examples of the sorts of devices that might be LPWAN devices would be helpful as well - this document is an overview - this means that many of the readers will be unfamiliar with the concepts; I ended up searching for some of the technologies discussed and found things like railway track monitors and parking sensors, and having these sorts of things as example devices helped me understand why the technologies are useful.

Nits:
1: Section 2.1.2:
O:  o  - Join Server: The Join Server (JS) is a server on the Internet
C: stray '-'

O: o  Uplink message: refers to communications from end-device to
      network server or application via one or more gateways.
C: I think 'from an end-device' (or possibly 'end-devices') - same for server, etc.

O:  o  Downlink message: refers to communications from network server or
C: Same as above.


I found Section 2.2 much harder to read - the document says that it assumes familiarity with numerous 3GPP terms -- perhaps if I were familiar with there it would have made more sense, but I basically just skipped over it.

Section 2.3. SIGFOX
  Text here is largely from [I-D.zuniga-lpwan-sigfox-system-description] which may have been updated since this was published.

A comma after the bracket, or putting the "which may..." would improve readability. (Hey, I did say these were nits!).

Section 2.4.2.  Characteristics
O: o  Coverage The range of
C: Missing colon after "Coverage".

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

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-07, 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
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-01-16):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Alexander Pelov , lpwan-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lpwan-overview@ietf.org, a@ackl.io, lp-wan@ietf.org, suresh@kaloom.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (LPWAN Overview) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area
Networks WG (lpwan) to consider the following document: - 'LPWAN Overview'
  as Informational RFC

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 2018-01-16. 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


  Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) are wireless technologies with
  characteristics such as large coverage areas, low bandwidth, possibly
  very small packet and application layer data sizes and long battery
  life operation.  This memo is an informational overview of the set of
  LPWAN technologies being considered in the IETF and of the gaps that
  exist between the needs of those technologies and the goal of running
  IP in LPWANs.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lpwan-overview/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lpwan-overview/ballot/


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

This is the Document Write-Up for draft-ietf-lpwan-overview. To sum up: no
issues with the document, nor the process.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) This document is submitted as an Informational RFC, as indicated on the page
header. This is the appropriate track for this document, as it presents an
overview of technologies and gap analysis to be used for informational purposes
only.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Document Announcement Write-Up

Technical Summary

  This document is an overview of the set of Low-Power Wide-Area Network
  technologies being considered in the IETF and of the gaps that exist between
  the needs of those technologies and the goal of running IP in LPWANs. The four
  baseline LPWAN technologies are described at a level, which allows to identify
  the necessary adaptations for each of them. The document provides overviews of
  the characteristics of the PHY and MAC layers of the various technologies, the
  deployment topologies, addressing and security features. It is not a critical
  review of the technologies and its goal is not to provide a comparison between
  them. Instead, it's purpose is to enable the understanding of the features of
  the "IP over LPWAN" design space. The document also provides a guide on the
  terminologies used across the various baseline technologies .

Working Group Summary

  The document is the combined effort of representatives of the four baseline
  LPWAN technologies, each authoring the part corresponding to their technology.
  Significant parts of the gap analysis have been contributed by other WG
  participants. With 12 contributing authors, the document is the fruit of a
  constructive work of many different organizations and individuals.

Document Quality

  The document provides an informational overview of technologies, which were
  defined outside the IETF. Each of the baseline technology providers
  (alliances, standardization bodies, companies) have designated corresponding
  authors for the relative sections. The gap analysis and the other common
  sections were widely reviewed and discussed by the many authors of the
  document (12) and the WG as whole. The document is of excellent quality. The
  LPWAN technologies evolve rapidly, and the document provides a view that is
  frozen at the time of the writing.


Personnel

  The document was reviewed for the IESG by  the shepherd Alexander Pelov (WG
  Chair). Responsible Area Director is Suresh Krishnan. This review comes in
  addition of the multiple reviews of the various sections provided (and
  validated internally) by the different technology providers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) The review performed by the Document Shepherd is based on following the entire
life-cycle of the document plus a final, complete review. The initial goals,
together with the individual drafts, and the multiple discussions in the mailing
list and during the WG meetings helped the Document Shepherd to follow the
process. The final review ensured that the quality of the document and the level
of integration corresponds to the process that lead to it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) No concerns on the review of the document.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) No particular or broader perspective review is necessary.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) The Document Shepherd has no specific concerns with the document.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(7) All authors have confirmed that there are no IPR relative to this document. The
confirmations are public on the mailing list.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(8) No IPR disclosures are referencing this document.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(9) The document has a wide WG consensus behind it. It was confirmed on several WG
meetings and on the mailing list. The WG as a whole understands and agrees with
it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(10) No appeal or extreme discontent were every expressed regarding this document.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(11) The document follows the Internet-Drafts Checklist. Nits on references (RFC2460-
obsolete reference - use 8200 instead; lacking FANTPS ref) can be solved during
the review or the edition process.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(12) The document does not require a formal review.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(13) All references in the document are identified as informative.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(14) There are no normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement. There are no normative references.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(15) There are no downward normative references.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(16) The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFC.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(17) There are no IANA considerations, which is consistent with the document.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(18) There are no new IANA registries.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(19) This document does not use any definitions expressed in formal language (BNF
rules, MIB definitions, etc.) and as such, no automated checks were performed.