Static Context Header Compression and Fragmentation (SCHC) over LoRaWAN
draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan-14

[Ballot comment]
Can someone please explain when there will actually be defined a context establishment mechanism for a link technology applying shch? This specification do not appear to be usable in an general interoperable way eithout that. What is the intention for lorawan to solve this issue?

[Ballot comment]
The title, Abstract, and Introduction all use “LoRaWAN” without expansion or explanation.  I suggest expanding it as “Long Range WAN” in all three places, and citing [lora-alliance-spec] at that expansion in the Introduction (you dont cite it until Section 4).

Please expand LPWAN on first use in the Introduction.

And a comment about Martin’s comment: “I found this document to be very tough going without reading through RFC8724.” ... Well, to be fair, 8724 is a normative reference, so isn’t that sort of expected?

[Ballot comment]
I am not sure that I understand the expected behavior for class A
devices when the SCHC gateway is retransmitting SCHC ACK and also has
other, higher-priority, downlink traffic to send.  As I note inline in
the Section 5.6.3.5.1 comments, it seems like we might have internally
inconsistent guidance about whether a non-SCHC-ACK message indicates
receipt of the ACK (and thus that the device can discard the saved SCHC
ACK message).

It is interesting that we give (e.g., in §5.6.2.4, 5.6.3.4) the
Receiver-Abort format but not the Sender-Abort format.

It seems like we are perhaps playing a little fast and loose with the
requirements imposed by RFC 8742, in that it attempts to require various
aspects to be specified for each ruleID for each profile, but we do not
specify the full set of Rule IDs.  Perhaps it would be worth a blanket
statement that the procedures we specify apply to all rule IDs using
this profile (unless otherwise specified by the configuration that
establishes the static context on both parties to the communication).

Section 2

Please expand EUI on first use, as it's not marked as "well-known" at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt .

Section 3

It seems like it might be useful to indicate in the figure where the
LoRaWAN network boundary is.

Section 4.2

  LoRaWAN end-devices use a 32-bit network address (devAddr) to
  communicate with the Network Gateway over-the-air, this address might
  not be unique in a LoRaWAN network; devices using the same devAddr
  are distinguished by the Network Gateway based on the cryptographic
  signature appended to every LoRaWAN frame.

nit: the first comma is a comma splice, but the sentence already has a
semicolon.  I think this paragraph should become at least two sentences.

  To communicate with the SCHC gateway, the Network Gateway MUST
  identify the devices by a unique 64-bit device identifier called the
  DevEUI.

Baking in a persistent identifier like this has privacy considerations.
Is DevEUI randomization going to be possible?

Section 4.3

  As SCHC defines its own acknowledgment mechanisms, SCHC does not
  require to use LoRaWAN Confirmed frames.

nit: s/require to use/require use of/

Section 4.4

  o  Data: MAC and application data.  Application data are protected
      with AES-128 encryption, MAC related data are AES-128 encrypted
      with another key.

nit: comma splice.

Section 5.1

  Note: SCHC Message is any datagram sent by SCHC C/D or F/R layers.

How would such a message be identified by the recipient?  Is the FPort
contents enough, or would there be some other data needed as well?

Section 5.3

Thank you for condsidering the RFC 8064/8065 risks and using ephemeral
IIDs tied to the application session!

Using the AppSKey for a purpose other than protecting LoRaWAN
application traffic is not great cryptographic hygiene.  That said, I
recognize that it's chosen because we don't expect all LoRaWAN devices
to have any kind of cryptographic hash available and that limits the
options for key derivation.  I would need to think a bit harder to tell
whether even something as simple as prepending a fixed constant block
before the DevEUI as CMAC input would provide any additional benefit.

[I did not attempt to verify the IID-generation example.]

Section 5.6.2

It might be nice to list the F/R parameters in the same order that RFC
8742 (Section 8.2.4 or 8.4.3) does.

Also, a forward reference to the subsections that provide the layout of
the various fields would be appreciated.

  o  DTag: Size is 0 bit, not used.

We should probably say specifically that T is 0 bits.

  o  Window index: encoded on W = 2 bits.  So 4 windows are available.

Likewise, M is 2 bits.

  o  RCS: Use recommended calculation algorithm in [RFC8724].

It might be helpful to give a section reference into 8724 (and likewise
in §5.6.3).

  o  Retransmission timer: Set by the implementation depending on the
      application requirements.

Can we give a default value that would be usable in many situations?

  o  Last tile: it can be carried in a Regular SCHC Fragment, alone in
      an All-1 SCHC Fragment or with any of these two methods.

So receivers have to be able to cope with receiving either version, too?

  For battery powered devices, it is RECOMMENDED to use the ACK
  mechanism at the end of each window instead of waiting until the end
  of all windows:

This is the Uplink section; won't whether/when to ACK be under the
control of the SCHC gateway, that may or may not know if the device is
battery-powered or not?

  o  the SCHC sender SHOULD wait for the SCHC ACK from the SCHC
      receiver before sending tiles from the next window.  If the SCHC
      ACK is not received, it SHOULD send a SCHC ACK REQ up to
      MAX_ACK_REQUESTS times, as described previously.

If no ACK is elicited, does it continue on to the next window or fail
the transmission?

  SCHC implementations MUST be compatible with both behaviors, and this
  selection is part of the rule context.

This is attaching a new property to each rule at the very end of the
section, which is easily ignored; I strongly recommend adding a
prominent note at the top of the section that "in addition to the
per-rule context parameters specified in [RFC8724], for uplink rules an
additional context parameter is added: whether or not to ack after each
window".

Section 5.6.3

  o  SCHC fragmentation reliability mode:

      *  Unicast downlinks: ACK-Always.

      *  Multicast downlinks: No-ACK, reliability has to be ensured by
        the upper layer.  This feature is OPTIONAL and may not be
        implemented by SCHC gateway.

I think you should say that the subsequent parameters only apply to the
ACK-Always case, since the No-ACK case does not need (I think?) any of
them except the rule ID.

  o  DTag: Size is 0 bit, not used.

Should probably mention T, again.

  Class A devices can only receive during an RX slot, following the
  transmission of an uplink.  Therefore the SCHC gateway cannot
  initiate communication (e.g., start a new SCHC session).  In order to
  create a downlink opportunity it is RECOMMENDED for Class A devices
  to send an uplink every 24 hours when no SCHC session is started,
  this is application specific and can be disabled.  [...]

Just to walk through this, if the SCHC gateway has more than 2 frames to
send to the device, after the device-initiated (every 24 hour)
transmission, the SCHC gateway will send the first two frames, and then
... each ACK from the device will also open up two receive slots, so the
exchange continues fairly synchronously until the SCHC gateway does not
have more data to transmit?  Are there any cases (multiple losses) where
we might be reduced to a trickle of 20 bytes every 24 hours?

Section 5.6.3.5.1

  _Note_: The device MUST keep this SCHC ACK message in memory until it
  receives a downlink SCHC Fragmentation Message (with FPort ==
  FPortDown) that is not a SCHC ACK REQ: it indicates that the SCHC
  gateway has received the SCHC ACK message.

I'm not sure that I understand how this works -- the previous paragraph
seemed to indicate that we had SCHC_ACK_REQ_DN_OPPORTUNITY greater than
one to allow for non-ACK-REQ (i.e., potentially higher priority) traffic
to get sent, which I assumed meant intermingled with the ACK REQs.  But
the paragraph I quote here implies that any such intermingling would be
misinterpreted as receipt of the ACK.  So, what is the expected behavior
when the SCHC gateway is retransmitting ACK REQ and also has other
downlink traffic to send?

Section 5.7

This seems to just be reiterating behaviors stated in RFC 8742, with
specific numbers corrsponding to this profile.  If so, it's not entirely
clear how much value there is in keeping the calculationsin the final
archival RFC.

Section 6

It's a little unfortunate that [lora-alliance-spec] doesn't have much in
the way of a security considerations section, which would cover that the
quality of RNG on device and join server is quite relevant for the
strength of the session keys.  (Also, what Roman said.)

Please also add a mention of the privacy considerations for using the
persistent DevEUI as an identifier for communications between the SCHC
gateway and network gateway.  (I assume that this is encrypted at least
as well as the regular LoRaWAN traffic, so there is not huge exposure,
but it seems like it is still worth documenting.)

Section 10.1

Why is RFC 8064 normative but not RFC 8065?  We cite them in exactly the
same circumstances, so they should receive identical treatment.

Sectino 10.2

I think [lora-alliance-spec] should probably be listed as normative;
even if you try to implement LoRaWAN SCHC as a separate module than the
core LoRaWAN stack, you still need to know about integrating with the
FPort.

Similarly, since the RFC 4493 AES-CMAC is used for generating the IID
(which is a MUST-level requirement), RFC 4493 needs to be a normative
reference.  (I note that RFC 4493 is already listed at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ so there is no process concern
in doing so.)

Appendix A

  In following examples "applicative payload" refers to the IPv6
  payload sent by the application to the SCHC layer.

This is a slightly unfortunate terminology choice, since we also use the
unadorned term "payload" to refer to (what I assume is) the IPv6
payload, i.e., the actual application data.

Appendix A.2

Compressing a 478 byte IPv6 packet down to 283 bytes is quite
impressive, almost unrealistically so, considering that the base IPv6
header is 40 bytes and we can only get a few more from (e.g.) UDP port
numbers and such.

Appendix A.3

This is again an impressive compression result for only IPv6+UDP input.

[Ballot comment]
[[ questions ]]

[ section 5.3 ]

* Is this MUST really necessary?  If an implementation wanted to, say, read
  8 bytes from a good /dev/urandom source wouldn't that also be okay?  Seems
  like SHOULD would suffice (with a MUST NOT comment about not just using
  DevEUI etc).

[Ballot comment]
** Section 3.  Per “… sending application flows using IPv6 or IPv6/UDP protocols”?  It isn’t clear to me what nuance is being conveyed by saying IPv6 with and without UDP.

** Section 5.3 
-- it would be useful to explicitly state that AppSKey is a session key and what it is used for (encryption and decryption of the payload)

-- s/As AppSKey is renewed each time/As AppSKey is regenerated each time/ -- isn’t it derived per each join from a the AppKey+nonce+?

-- s/appSKey:/AppSKey/

-- RFC4493 should be normative because it is needed to compute the IID

** Section 6.
Moreover, SCHC data (LoRaWAN payload) are protected at
  the LoRaWAN level by an AES-128 encryption with a session key shared
  by the device and the SCHC gateway.  These session keys are renewed
  at each LoRaWAN session (ie: each join or rejoin to the LoRaWAN
  network)

Appreciating that this document is not redefining LoRaWAN security, it might nevertheless be helpful to more clearly state (or provide a reference to) the security properties of the link between the device and the application service (SCHC gateway).  Since the text explicitly noted that confidentiality via the session key, it would also be helpful to note the other properties such as integrity provided by the MIC, partial replay protection via the DevNonce, etc.

[Ballot comment]
I found this document to be very tough going without reading through RFC8724.

- I am not sure what Fig. 5 depicts. Does this mean that an "SCHC Packet" is a subset of an "SCHC Message", prepended by the Fport and LoRaWan payload? Because Fig. 4 of RFC 8724 says an "SCHC Packet" consists of a "Payload" prepended by the Rule ID (which corresponds to the FPort) and "Compression Residue". Please align the terminology!

- There are numerous terms from 8724 that could use a brief definition here on first use: for example RuleID, MSB, RX1, RX2, and IID.

- Sec 5.6.2:
  For battery powered devices, it is RECOMMENDED to use the ACK
  mechanism at the end of each window instead of waiting until the end
  of all windows...

  For non-battery powered devices, the SCHC receiver MAY also choose to
  send a SCHC ACK only at the end of all windows.  This will reduce
  downlink load on the LoRaWAN network, by reducing the number of
  downlinks.

This text is ambiguous. For example, the first paragraph can be interpreted as "battery-powered devices SHOULD send an ACK at the end of each window, instead of waiting till the end of all windows", or "endpoints sending to battery-powered devices SHOULD send an ACK at the end of each window...." To the layman, it is a little odd that the non-battery-powered devices are more encouraged to send fewer messages! Some explanatory text would be useful.

- Sec 5.6.5.3.1
"All fragments but the last have an FCN=0
  (because window size is 1).  Following it, the device MUST transmit
  the SCHC ACK message."

What is "it"? All fragments, or the FCN=1 fragment?

[Ballot comment]
I found this document to be very tough going without a thorough understanding of RFC8724.

- I am not sure what Fig. 5 depicts. Does this mean that an "SCHC Packet" is a subset of an "SCHC Message", prepended by the Fport and LoRaWan payload? Because Fig. 4 of RFC 8724 says an "SCHC Packet" consists of a "Payload" prepended by the Rule ID (which corresponds to the FPort) and "Compression Residue". Please align the terminology!

- There are numerous terms from 8724 that could use a brief definition here on first use: a partial list is RuleID, MSB, RX1, RX2, and IID.

- Sec 5.6.2:
  For battery powered devices, it is RECOMMENDED to use the ACK
  mechanism at the end of each window instead of waiting until the end
  of all windows...

  For non-battery powered devices, the SCHC receiver MAY also choose to
  send a SCHC ACK only at the end of all windows.  This will reduce
  downlink load on the LoRaWAN network, by reducing the number of
  downlinks.

This text is ambiguous. For example, the first paragraph can be interpreted as "battery-powered devices SHOULD send an ACK at the end of each window, instead of waiting till the end of all windows", or "endpoints sending to battery-powered devices SHOULD send an ACK at the end of each window...." To the layman, it is a little odd that the non-battery-powered devices are more encouraged to send fewer messages! Some explanatory text would be useful.

- Sec 5.6.5.3.1
"All fragments but the last have an FCN=0
  (because window size is 1).  Following it, the device MUST transmit
  the SCHC ACK message."

What is "it"? All fragments, or the FCN=1 fragment?

[Ballot comment]
I found this document to be very tough going without a thorough understanding of RFC8724.

- I am not sure what Fig. 5 depicts. Does this mean that an "SCHC Packet" is a subset of an "SCHC Message", prepended by the Fport and LoRaWan payload? Because Fig. 4 of RFC 8724 says an "SCHC Packet" consists of a "Payload" prepended by the Rule ID (which corresponds to the FPort) and "Compression Residue". Please align the terminology!

There are numerous terms from 8724 that could use a brief definition here on first use: a partial list is RuleID, MSB, RX1, RX2, and IID.

- Sec 5.6.2:
  For battery powered devices, it is RECOMMENDED to use the ACK
  mechanism at the end of each window instead of waiting until the end
  of all windows...

  For non-battery powered devices, the SCHC receiver MAY also choose to
  send a SCHC ACK only at the end of all windows.  This will reduce
  downlink load on the LoRaWAN network, by reducing the number of
  downlinks.

This text is ambiguous. For example, the first paragraph can be interpreted as "battery-powered devices SHOULD send an ACK at the end of each window, instead of waiting till the end of all windows", or "endpoints sending to battery-powered devices SHOULD send an ACK at the end of each window...." To the layman, it is a little odd that the non-battery-powered devices are more encouraged to send fewer messages! Some explanatory text would be useful.

[Ballot comment]
I found this document to be very tough going without a thorough understanding of RFC8724.

- I am not sure what Fig. 5 depicts. Does this mean that an "SCHC Packet" is a subset of an "SCHC Message", prepended by the Fport and LoRaWan payload? Because Fig. 4 of RFC 8724 says an "SCHC Packet" consists of a "Payload" prepended by the Rule ID (which corresponds to the FPort) and "Compression Residue". Please align the terminology!

There are numerous terms from 8724 that could use a brief definition here on first use: a partial list is RuleID, MSB, and IID.

[Ballot comment]
I found this document to be very tough going without a thorough understanding of RFC8724.

- I am not sure what Fig. 5 depicts. Does this mean that an "SCHC Packet" is a subset of an "SCHC Message", prepended by the Fport and LoRaWan payload? Because Fig. 4 of RFC 8724 says an "SCHC Packet" consists of a "Payload" prepended by the Rule ID (which corresponds to the FPort) and "Compression Residue". Please align the terminology!

[Ballot comment]
I found this document to be very tough going without a thorough understanding of RFC8724.

- I am not sure what Fig. 5 depicts. Does this mean that an "SCHC Packet" is a subset of an "SCHC Message", prepended by the Fport and LoRaWan payload? Because Fig. 4 of

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Proposed Standard. This matches the title page header (from -v10 onward).
This RFC specifies a profile for using SCHC (RFC8724) over the LoRaWAN networks: it picks some options and defines some parameters left open in the generic SCHC specification.

(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:
RFC8724 has specified a generic framework for Static Context Header Compression and fragmentation (SCHC), designed with Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) in mind.
LoRaWAN(R) is one such LPWAN technology.
This document describes parameters and modes of operation for efficiently using RFC8724 over the LoraWAN networks.

Working Group Summary:
There was no particular controversy or rough consensus to be noted.
The authors are affiliated with two companies that have a strong involvement both in the IETF LPWAN WG and in the LoRa Alliance.
Feedback and design considerations were received from other companies primarily involved in the LoRa Alliance.
Information has been delivered both ways between the two SDOs, so we beleive the interests of the LoRa Alliance are well addressed by this document.
There were technical discussions and design iterations regarding features allowing RFC8724 to efficiently operate over quasi-bidirectional links, which were constructive and professional.

Document Quality:
Implementations are under way at the companies the authors are affiliated with, and others.
There were thorough reviews of the document done by companies that are prominent members of the LoRa Alliance. This lead to slight adjustements to the protocol to operate efficiently over the quais-bidirectional links of LoRaWAN Class A devices, as mentioned above.
Several WG interim meetings and even a few dedicated telecoference were devoted to discussing this adjustments.
There were several thorough reviews done by the document shepherd, who happens to be a co-author of RFC8724. This lead to the full exploitation of the potential of RFC8724, and even to some litlle changes to RFC8724 itself during its last design stages.
No MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review was done nor needed.

Personnel:
The Sepherd is Dominique Barthel.
The Responsible Area Director is Eric Vincke.

(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.
As a co-author of RFC8724, the Shepherd has constantly monitored and commented on this document, which is the first to specify a profile for RFC8724, from its inception.
In addition, the Shepherd specifically performed a thorough review of draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan-00 (may 2019) and -05 (dec 2019), as well as of all diffs between successive versions of this documents, checking for compliance with RFC8724, completeness and adequation to LoRaWAN.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concern. This document was reviewed by the individuals most intimately familiar with RFC8724 or with LoRaWAN.

(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.
No such review neded.

(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.
No such specific concern or issue.

(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?
Yes, each author has confirmed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
There has been one IPR disclosed regarding this draft. The disclosure happened before the end of the WGLC.
It has not generated any publicly visible discussion.

(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?
This document is the product of the work by a part of the LPWAN WG (the part that has an interest in using SCHC over LoRaWAN), but it has been followed and understood by other parts of the WG, which have interest in using SCHC over different but similar technologies, such as Sigfox.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
No threat of appeal or other extreme 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.
The ID nit tool run on Aug 1st 2020 on draft version -08 shows 4 ASCII art drawing with lines too long, mostly by just a few characters.
The ID nit tool output does not show the severity of this issue, i.e., if this is considered an Error, a Flaw, a Warning or a Comments.
The shepherd therefore proceeds with the submission, while requesting the authors to rework the offending ASCII art.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
None of content in this document.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
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?
All normative references are to published RFCs

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
No downward normative reference.

(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.
This document does not change the status of any existing RFC.

(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 8126).
This document makes no requirement to IANA.

(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.
This document makes no requirement to IANA.

(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, YANG modules, etc.
No formal language section in this document.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?
No YANG module in this document.

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

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan-10, 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 2020-10-02):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: lp-wan@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan@ietf.org, lpwan-chairs@ietf.org, Dominique Barthel , evyncke@cisco.com, dominique.barthel@orange.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) over LoRaWAN) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area
Networks WG (lpwan) to consider the following document: - 'Static Context
Header Compression (SCHC) over LoRaWAN'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-10-02. 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


  The Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) specification describes
  generic header compression and fragmentation techniques for Low Power
  Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) technologies.  SCHC is a generic mechanism
  designed for great flexibility so that it can be adapted for any of
  the LPWAN technologies.

  This document provides the adaptation of SCHC for use in LoRaWAN
  networks, and provides elements such as efficient parameterization
  and modes of operation.  This is called a profile.




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


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4149/



The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc8065: Privacy Considerations for IPv6 Adaptation-Layer Mechanisms (Informational - IETF stream)
    rfc8376: Low-Power Wide Area Network (LPWAN) Overview (Informational - IETF stream)

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Informational. This matches the title page header.
This RFC specifies a profile for using SCHC (RFC8724) over the LoRaWAN networks: it picks some options and defines some parameters left open in the generic SCHC specification.

(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:
RFC8724 has specified a generic framework for Static Context Header Compression and fragmentation (SCHC), designed with Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) in mind.
LoRaWAN(R) is one such LPWAN technology.
This document describes parameters and modes of operation for efficiently using RFC8724 over the LoraWAN networks.

Working Group Summary:
There was no particular controversy or rough consensus to be noted.
The authors are affiliated with two companies that have a strong involvement both in the IETF LPWAN WG and in the LoRa Alliance.
Feedback and design considerations were received from other companies primarily involved in the LoRa Alliance.
Information has been delivered both ways between the two SDOs, so we beleive the interests of the LoRa Alliance are well addressed by this document.
There were technical discussions and design iterations regarding features allowing RFC8724 to efficiently operate over quasi-bidirectional links, which were constructive and professional.

Document Quality:
Implementations are under way at the companies the authors are affiliated with, and others.
There were thorough reviews of the document done by companies that are prominent members of the LoRa Alliance. This lead to slight adjustements to the protocol to operate efficiently over the quais-bidirectional links of LoRaWAN Class A devices, as mentioned above.
Several WG interim meetings and even a few dedicated telecoference were devoted to discussing this adjustments.
There were several thorough reviews done by the document shepherd, who happens to be a co-author of RFC8724. This lead to the full exploitation of the potential of RFC8724, and even to some litlle changes to RFC8724 itself during its last design stages.
No MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review was done nor needed.

Personnel:
The Sepherd is Dominique Barthel.
The Responsible Area Director is Eric Vincke.

(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.
As a co-author of RFC8724, the Shepherd has constantly monitored and commented on this document, which is the first to specify a profile for RFC8724, from its inception.
In addition, the Shepherd specifically performed a thorough review of draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan-00 (may 2019) and -05 (dec 2019), as well as of all diffs between successive versions of this documents, checking for compliance with RFC8724, completeness and adequation to LoRaWAN.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concern. This document was reviewed by the individuals most intimately familiar with RFC8724 or with LoRaWAN.

(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.
No such review neded.

(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.
No such specific concern or issue.

(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?
Yes, each author has confirmed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
There has been one IPR disclosed regarding this draft. The disclosure happened before the end of the WGLC.
It has not generated any publicly visible discussion.

(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?
This document is the product of the work by a part of the LPWAN WG (the part that has an interest in using SCHC over LoRaWAN), but it has been followed and understood by other parts of the WG, which have interest in using SCHC over different but similar technologies, such as Sigfox.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
No threat of appeal or other extreme 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.
The ID nit tool run on Aug 1st 2020 on draft version -08 shows 4 ASCII art drawing with lines too long, mostly by just a few characters.
The ID nit tool output does not show the severity of this issue, i.e., if this is considered an Error, a Flaw, a Warning or a Comments.
The shepherd therefore proceeds with the submission, while requesting the authors to rework the offending ASCII art.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
None of content in this document.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
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?
All normative references are to published RFCs

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
No downward normative reference.

(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.
This document does not change the status of any existing RFC.

(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 8126).
This document makes no requirement to IANA.

(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.
This document makes no requirement to IANA.

(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, YANG modules, etc.
No formal language section in this document.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?
No YANG module in this document.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Informational. This matches the title page header.
This RFC specifies a profile for using SCHC (RFC8724) over the LoRaWAN networks: it picks some options and defines some parameters left open in the generic SCHC specification.

(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:
RFC8724 has specified a generic framework for Static Context Header Compression and fragmentation (SCHC), designed with Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) in mind.
LoRaWAN(R) is one such LPWAN technology.
This document describes parameters and modes of operation for efficiently using RFC8724 over the LoraWAN networks.

Working Group Summary:
There was no particular controversy or rough consensus to be noted.
The authors are affiliated with two companies that have a strong involvement both in the IETF LPWAN WG and in the LoRa Alliance.
Feedback and design considerations were received from other companies primarily involved in the LoRa Alliance.
Information has been delivered both ways between the two SDOs, so we beleive the interests of the LoRa Alliance are well addressed by this document.
There were technical discussions and design iterations regarding features allowing RFC8724 to efficiently operate over quasi-bidirectional links, which were constructive and professional.

Document Quality:
Implementations are under way at the companies the authors are affiliated with, and others.
There were thorough reviews of the document done by companies that are prominent members of the LoRa Alliance. This lead to slight adjustements to the protocol to operate efficiently over the quais-bidirectional links of LoRaWAN Class A devices, as mentioned above.
Several WG interim meetings and even a few dedicated telecoference were devoted to discussing this adjustments.
There were several thorough reviews done by the document shepherd, who happens to be a co-author of RFC8724. This lead to the full exploitation of the potential of RFC8724, and even to some litlle changes to RFC8724 itself during its last design stages.
No MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review was done nor needed.

Personnel:
The Sepherd is Dominique Barthel.
The Responsible Area Director is Eric Vincke.

(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.
As a co-author of RFC8724, the Shepherd has constantly monitored and commented on this document, which is the first to specify a profile for RFC8724, from its inception.
In addition, the Shepherd specifically performed a thorough review of draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan-00 (may 2019) and -05 (dec 2019), as well as of all diffs between successive versions of this documents, checking for compliance with RFC8724, completeness and adequation to LoRaWAN.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concern. This document was reviewed by the individuals most intimately familiar with RFC8724 or with LoRaWAN.

(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.
No such review neded.

(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.
No such specific concern or issue.

(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?
Yes, each author has confirmed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
There has been one IPR disclosed regarding this draft. The disclosure happened before the end of the WGLC.
It has not generated any publicly visible discussion.

(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?
This document is the product of the work by a part of the LPWAN WG (the part that has an interest in using SCHC over LoRaWAN), but it has been followed and understood by other parts of the WG, which have interest in using SCHC over different but similar technologies, such as Sigfox.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
No threat of appeal or other extreme 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.
The ID nit tool run on Aug 1st 2020 on draft version -08 shows 4 ASCII art drawing with lines too long, mostly by just a few characters.
The ID nit tool output does not show the severity of this issue, i.e., if this is considered an Error, a Flaw, a Warning or a Comments.
The shepherd therefore proceeds with the submission, while requesting the authors to rework the offending ASCII art.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
None of content in this document.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
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?
All normative references are to published RFCs

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
No downward normative reference.

(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.
This document does not change the status of any existing RFC.

(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 8126).
This document makes no requirement to IANA.

(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.
This document makes no requirement to IANA.

(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, YANG modules, etc.
No formal language section in this document.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?
No YANG module in this document.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Informational. This matches the title page header.
This RFC specifies a profile for using SCHC (RFC8724) over the LoRaWAN networks: it picks some options and defines some parameters left open in the generic SCHC specification.

(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:
RFC8724 has specified a generic framework for Static Context Header Compression and fragmentation (SCHC), designed with Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) in mind.
LoRaWAN(R) is one such LPWAN technology.
This document describes parameters and modes of operation for efficiently using RFC8724 over the LoraWAN networks.

Working Group Summary:
There was no particular controversy or rough consensus to be noted.
The authors are affiliated with two companies that have a strong involvement both in the IETF LPWAN WG and in the LoRa Alliance.
Feedback and design considerations were received from other companies primarily involved in the LoRa Alliance.
Information has been delivered both ways between the two SDOs, so we beleive the interests of the LoRa Alliance are well addressed by this document.
There were technical discussions and design iterations regarding features allowing RFC8724 to efficiently operate over quasi-bidirectional links, which were constructive and professional.

Document Quality:
Implementations are under way at the companies the authors are affiliated with, and others.
There were thorough reviews of the document done by companies that are prominent members of the LoRa Alliance. This lead to slight adjustements to the protocol to operate efficiently over the quais-bidirectional links of LoRaWAN Class A devices, as mentioned above.
Several WG interim meetings and even a few dedicated telecoference were devoted to discussing this adjustments.
There were several thorough reviews done by the document shepherd, who happens to be a co-author of RFC8724. This lead to the full exploitation of the potential of RFC8724, and even to some litlle changes to RFC8724 itself during its last design stages.
No MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review was done nor needed.

Personnel:
The Sepherd is Dominique Barthel.
The Responsible Area Director is Eric Vincke.

(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.
As a co-author of RFC8724, the Shepherd constantly monitored and commented on this document, which is the first to specify a profile for RFC8724, from its inception.
In addition, the Shepherd specifically performed a thorough review of draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan-00 (may 2019) and -05 (dec 2019), as well as of all diffs between successive versions of this documents, checking for compliance with 8724, completeness and adequation to LoRaWAN.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concern. This document was reviewed by the individuals most intimately familiar with RFC8724 or with LoRaWAN.

(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.
No such review neded.

(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.
No such specific concern or issue.

(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?
Yes, each author has confirmed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
There has been one IPR disclosed regarding this draft. The disclosure happened before the end of the WGLC.
It has not generated any publicly visible discussion.

(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?
This document is the product of the work by a part of the LPWAN WG (the part that has an interest in using SCHC over LoRaWAN), but it has been followed and understood by other parts of the WG, which have interest in using SCHC over different but similar technologies, such as Sigfox.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
No threat of appeal or other extreme 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.
The ID nit tool run on Aug 1st 2020 on draft version -08 shows 4 ASCII art drawing with lines too long, mostly by just a few characters.
The ID nit tool output does not show the severity of this issue, i.e., if this is considered an Error, a Flaw, a Warning or a Comments.
The shepherd therefore proceeds with the submission, while requesting the authors to rework the offending ASCII art.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
None of content in this document.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
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?
All normative references are to published RFCs

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
No downward normative reference.

(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.
This document does not change the status of any existing RFC.

(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 8126).
This document makes no requirement to IANA.

(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.
This document makes no requirement to IANA.

(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, YANG modules, etc.
No formal language section in this document.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?
No YANG module in this document.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Informational. This matches the title page header.
This RFC specifies a profile for using SCHC (RFC8724) over the LoRaWAN networks: it picks some options and defines some parameters left open in the generic SCHC specification.

(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:
RFC8724 has specified a generic framework for Static Context Header Compression and fragmentation (SCHC), designed with Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) in mind.
LoRaWAN(R) is one such LPWAN technology.
This document describes parameters and modes of operation for efficiently using RFC8724 over the LoraWAN networks.

Working Group Summary:
There was no particular controversy or rough consensus to be noted.
The authors are affiliated with two companies that have a strong involvement both in the IETF LPWAN WG and in the LoRa Alliance.
Feedback and design considerations were received from other companies primarily involved in the LoRa Alliance.
Information has been delivered both ways between the two SDOs, so we beleive the interests of the LoRa Alliance are well addressed by this document.
There were technical discussions and design iterations regarding features allowing RFC8724 to efficiently operate over quasi-bidirectional links, which were constructive and professional.

Document Quality:
Implementations are under way at the companies the authors are affiliated with, and others.
There were thorough reviews of the document done by companies that are prominent members of the LoRa Alliance. This lead to slight adjustements to the protocol to operate efficiently over the quais-bidirectional links of LoRaWAN Class A devices, as mentioned above.
Several WG interim meetings and even a few dedicated telecoference were devoted to discussing this adjustments.
There were several thorough reviews done by the document shepherd, who happens to be a co-author of RFC8724. This lead to the full exploitation of the potential of RFC8724, and even to some litlle changes to RFC8724 itself during its last design stages.
No MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review was done nor needed.

Personnel:
The Sepherd is Dominique Barthel.
The Responsible Area Director is Eric Vincke.

(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.
As a co-author of RFC8724, the Shepherd constantly monitored and commented on this document, which is the first to specify a profile for RFC8724, from its inception.
In addition, the Shepherd specifically performed a thorough review of draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan-00 (may 2019) and -05 (dec 2019), as well as of all diffs between successive versions of this documents, checking for compliance with 8724, completeness and adequation to LoRaWAN.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concern. This document was reviewed by the individuals most intimately familiar with RFC8724 or with LoRaWAN.

(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.
No such review neded.

(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.
No such specific concern or issue.

(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?
still expecting answer from Ivo

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
There has been one IPR disclosed regarding this draft. The disclosure happened before the end of the WGLC.
It has not generated any publicly visible discussion.

(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?
This document is the product of the work by a part of the LPWAN WG (the part that has an interest in using SCHC over LoRaWAN), but it has been followed and understood by other parts of the WG, which have interest in using SCHC over different but similar technologies, such as Sigfox.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
No threat of appeal or other extreme 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.
The ID nit tool run on Aug 1st 2020 on draft version -08 shows 4 ASCII art drawing with lines too long, mostly by just a few characters.
The ID nit tool output does not show the severity of this issue, i.e., if this is considered an Error, a Flaw, a Warning or a Comments.
The shepherd therefore proceeds with the submission, while requesting the authors to rework the offending ASCII art.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
None of content in this document.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
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?
All normative references are to published RFCs

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
No downward normative reference.

(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.
This document does not change the status of any existing RFC.

(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 8126).
This document makes no requirement to IANA.

(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.
This document makes no requirement to IANA.

(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, YANG modules, etc.
No formal language section in this document.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?
No YANG module in this document.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Informational. This matches the title page header.
This RFC specifies a profile for using SCHC (RFC8724) over the LoRaWAN networks: it picks some options and defines some parameters left open in the generic SCHC specification.

(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:
RFC8724 has specified a generic framework for Static Context Header Compression and fragmentation (SCHC), designed with Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) in mind.
LoRaWAN(R) is one such LPWAN technology.
This document describes parameters and modes of operation for efficiently using RFC8724 over the LoraWAN networks.

Working Group Summary:
There was no particular controversy or rough consensus to be noted.
The authors are affiliated with two companies that have a strong involvement both in the IETF LPWAN WG and in the LoRa Alliance.
Feedback and design considerations were received from other companies primarily involved in the LoRa Alliance.
Information has been delivered both ways between the two SDOs, so we beleive the interests of the LoRa Alliance are well addressed by this document.
There were technical discussions and design iterations regarding features allowing RFC8724 to efficiently operate over quasi-bidirectional links, which were constructive and professional.

Document Quality:
Implementations are under way at the companies the authors are affiliated with, and others.
There were thorough reviews of the document done by companies that are prominent members of the LoRa Alliance. This lead to slight adjustements to the protocol to operate efficiently over the quais-bidirectional links of LoRaWAN Class A devices, as mentioned above.
Several WG interim meetings and even a few dedicated telecoference were devoted to discussing this adjustments.
There were several thorough reviews done by the document shepherd, who happens to be a co-author of RFC8724. This lead to the full exploitation of the potential of RFC8724, and even to some litlle changes to RFC8724 itself during its last design stages.
No MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review was done nor needed.

Personnel:
The Sepherd is Dominique Barthel.
The Responsible Area Director is Eric Vincke.

(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.
As a co-author of RFC8724, the Shepherd constantly monitored and commented on this document, which is the first to specify a profile for RFC8724.
In addition, the Shepherd specifically performed a thorough of version -04 (may 2019) and of diffs between successive versions of this documents, checking for compliance with 8724, completeness and adequation to LoRaWAN.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concern. This document was reviewed by individuals who could not be more familiar with RFC8724 or with LoRaWAN.

(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.
No such review neded.

(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.
No such specific concern or issue.

(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?
still expecting answer from Ivo

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
There has been one IPR disclosed regarding this draft. The disclosure happened before the end of the WGLC.
It has not generated any publicly visible discussion.

(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?
This document is the product of the work by a part of the LPWAN WG (the part that has an interest in using SCHC over LoRaWAN), but it has been followed and understood by other parts of the WG, which have interest in using SCHC over different but similar technologies, such as Sigfox.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
No threat of appeal or other extreme 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.
The ID nit tool run on Aug 1st 2020 on draft version -08 shows 4 ASCII art drawing with lines too long, mostly by just a few characters.
The ID nit tool output does not show the severity of this issue, i.e., if this is considered an Error, a Flaw, a Warning or a Comments.
The shepherd therefore proceeds with the submission, while requesting the authors to rework the offending ASCII art.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
None of content in this document.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
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?
All normative references are to published RFCs

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
No downward normative reference.

(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.
This document does not change the status of any existing RFC.

(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 8126).
This document makes no requirement to IANA.

(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.
This document makes no requirement to IANA.

(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, YANG modules, etc.
No formal language section in this document.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?
No YANG module in this document.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Informational. This matches the title page header.
This RFC specifies a profile for using SCHC (RFC8724) over the LoRaWAN networks: it picks some options and defines some parameters left open in the generic SCHC specification.

(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:
RFC8724 has specified a generic framework for Static Context Header Compression and fragmentation (SCHC), designed with Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) in mind.
LoRaWAN(R) is one such LPWAN technology.
This document describes parameters and modes of operation for efficiently using RFC8724 over the LoraWAN networks.

Working Group Summary:
There was no particular controversy or rough consensus to be noted.
The authors are affiliated with two companies that have a strong involvement both in the IETF LPWAN WG and in the LoRa Alliance.
Feedback and design considerations were received from other companies primarily involved in the LoRa Alliance.
Information has been delivered both ways between the two SDOs, so we beleive the interests of the LoRa Alliance are well addressed by this document.
There were technical discussions and design iterations regarding features allowing RFC8724 to efficiently operate over quasi-bidirectional links, which were constructive and professional.

Document Quality:
Implementations are under way at the companies the authors are affiliated with, and others.
There were thorough reviews of the document done by companies that are prominent members of the LoRa Alliance. This lead to slight adjustements to the protocol to operate efficiently over the quais-bidirectional links of LoRaWAN Class A devices, as mentioned above.
Several WG interim meetings and even a few dedicated telecoference were devoted to discussing this adjustments.
There were several thorough reviews done by the document shepherd, who happens to be a co-author of RFC8724. This lead to the full exploitation of the potential of RFC8724, and even to some litlle changes to RFC8724 itself during its last design stages.
No MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review was done nor needed.

Personnel:
The Sepherd is Dominique Barthel.
The Responsible Area Director is Eric Vincke.

(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.
As a co-author of RFC8724, the Shepherd constantly monitored and commented on this document, which is the first to specify a profile for RFC8724.
In addition, the Shepherd specifically performed a thorough of version -04 (may 2019) and of diffs between successive versions of this documents, checking for compliance with 8724, completeness and adequation to LoRaWAN.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concern. This document was reviewed by individuals who could not be more familiar with RFC8724 or with LoRaWAN.

(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.
No such review neded.

(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.
No such specific concern or issue.

(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?
expecting answer from Ivo

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
There has been one IPR disclosed regarding this draft. The disclosure happened before the end of the WGLC.
It has not generated any publicly visible discussion.

(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?
This document is the product of the work by a part of the LPWAN WG (the part that has an interest in using SCHC over LoRaWAN), but it has been followed and understood by other parts of the WG, which have interest in using SCHC over different but similar technologies, such as Sigfox.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
No threat of appeal or other extreme 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.
The ID nit tool run on Aug 1st 2020 on draft version -08 shows 4 ASCII art drawing with lines too long, mostly by just a few characters.
The ID nit tool output does not show the severity of this issue, i.e., if this is considered an Error, a Flaw, a Warning or a Comments.
The shepherd therefore proceeds with the submission, while requesting the authors to rework the offending ASCII art.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
None of content in this document.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
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?
All normative references are to published RFCs

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
No downward normative reference.

(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.
This document does not change the status of any existing RFC.

(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 8126).
This document makes no requirement to IANA.

(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.
This document makes no requirement to IANA.

(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, YANG modules, etc.
No formal language section in this document.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?
No YANG module in this document.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nicolas Sornin , Michael Coracin , lpwan-chairs@ietf.org, Ivaylo Petrov , Alper Yegin , Vincent AUDEBERT , Julien Catalano