Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) over Sigfox Low-Power Wide Area Network (LPWAN)
draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-sigfox-23

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS feedback.

** This document’s stated goal per Section 1 is to “describe the recommended parameters, settings, and modes of operation to be used when SCHC is implemented over a Sigfox LPWAN.  The cited reference for “Sigfox” is:

  [sigfox-spec]
              Sigfox, "Sigfox Radio Specifications",
              .

Visiting that URL shows that the Sigfox Radio specification is versioned.  There is a v1.6/March 2022, v1.5/Feb 2020 and v1.4/Nov 2019.  Does this SCHC profile apply to all of these versions?  And future versions that will pointed to from this URL?  The text should be cleared on applicability.

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-sigfox-18

CC @larseggert

## Comments

### Section 3.6.1.3.2, paragraph 8
```
    *  WINDOW_SIZE: 7 (with a maximum value of FCN=0b110)
```
0b110 is of course six - so are zero windows disallowed and the
encoding is off by one? (Same comment for other encoded window sizes
in the document.)

### Too many authors

The document has seven authors, which exceeds the recommended author limit. Has
the sponsoring AD agreed that this is appropriate?

## Nits

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

### Typos

#### Section 3.6.1.3.1, paragraph 11
```
-    The maximum SCHC Packet size is of 340 bytes.
-                                    ---
```

#### Section 4.2, paragraph 19
```
-            |<-Compoud ACK,W=0,1, C=0--| Bitmap W=0:1010110
+            |<-Compound ACK,W=0,1, C=0--| Bitmap W=0:1010110
+                      +
```

#### Section 4.2, paragraph 19
```
-            |<-Compoud ACK,W=1,C=1 ----| C=1
+            |<-Compound ACK,W=1,C=1 ----| C=1
+                      +
```

### "Authors' Addresses", paragraph 6
```
    Unabiz - Sigfox is now a Unabiz technology
```
Is that really the name of the organization?

### URLs

These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS:

* http://www.sigfox.com/
* http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-compound-ack-09.txt

### Grammar/style

#### Section 1, paragraph 4
```
sing a provisioning protocol, by out of band means, or by pre-provisioning th
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Did you mean "out-of-band"?

#### Section 3.3, paragraph 1
```
ty. For this reason, when SCHC bi-directional services are used (e.g., Ack-on
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This word is normally spelled as one.

#### Section 3.3, paragraph 1
```
All-1. The FCN is the tile index in an specific window. FCN and window numb
                                    ^^
```
Use "a" instead of "an" if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound,
e.g. "a sentence", "a university".

#### Section 3.6.1.3.1, paragraph 3
```
six - so are zero windows disallowed and the encoding is off by one? (Same c
                                    ^^^^
```
Use a comma before "and" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they
are closely connected and short).

#### Section 3.7.2.2, paragraph 5
```
ll-1 message Fragment Header contains a RCS of 4 bits to complete the two-byt
                                      ^
```
Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g.
"an article", "an hour".

#### Section 3.7.2.3, paragraph 4
```
er-Abort message header size is of 2 byte, with no padding bits. For the All-
                                    ^^^^
```
Possible agreement error. The noun "byte" seems to be countable.

#### Section 3.7.2.3, paragraph 4
```
he Sender-Abort message MUST be of 2 byte (only header with no padding). This
                                    ^^^^
```
Possible agreement error. The noun "byte" seems to be countable.

#### Section 3.7.3.2, paragraph 2
```
--------+ | 6 bits | 2 bits | 1 bit | 7 bit | 8 bit | 40 bits | next L2 W
                                        ^^^
```
Possible agreement error. The noun "bit" seems to be countable.

#### Section 3.7.3.3, paragraph 4
```
er-Abort message header size is of 2 byte, with no padding bits. For the All-
                                    ^^^^
```
Possible agreement error. The noun "byte" seems to be countable.

#### Section 3.7.3.3, paragraph 5
```
he Sender-Abort message MUST be of 2 byte (only header with no padding). This
                                    ^^^^
```
Possible agreement error. The noun "byte" seems to be countable.

## Notes

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

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

Changed action holders to Laurent Toutain, Éric Vyncke, Juan-Carlos Zúñiga, Carles Gomez, Sandra Cespedes, Diego S. Wistuba La Torre, Sergio Aguilar, Julien Boite (IESG state changed)

[Ballot comment]
I support the DISCUSSes of Lars and Roman.

I too was confused by some security aspects. One sigfox spec said it uses AES128 in CBC mode, while another said AES128 in CTR mode.

[Ballot comment]
Like Alvaro, and others, I support Lars' DISCUSS position.

I'd also like to thank Bo for the OpsDir review ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-sigfox-18-opsdir-lc-wu-2022-12-24/ ), and the authors for working well together to address these; I think that they improved the document.

Thanks all!

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Colin Perkins for the TSVART review.

I am also supporting Lars's discuss.

I regret on not getting explanations for more than 5 authors in this specification.

I noticed that the introduction section says  "This document describes the recommended parameters, settings, and modes of operation", I believe this specification, with the use of normative language "MUST" and likewise, is more than recommending. I would just remove the word "recommended" from the specific sentence.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for a good shepherd writeup.

I support Lars's DISCUSS position.

Similarly, I would like to confirm that the naming of seven authors (exceeding the RFC Editor guidance of five) is necessary here.

General:

* Since this document is specifically about SCHC over Sigfox, shouldn't [sigfox-spec] be normative?

Abstract:

* You don't need to give the SCHC RFC number twice.

Sections 3.5.1.3.1, 3.5.1.3.2, 3.5.1.4:

* When might an implementer do something other than what this SHOULD says?  Or ought this be a MUST?

Section 3.5.2:

* Same issue with the first SHOULD in this section.  (The second one is fine.)

[Ballot comment]
I support Lars's DISCUSS position.

Similarly, I would like to confirm that the naming of seven authors (exceeding the RFC Editor guidance of five) is necessary here.

General:

* Since this document is specifically about SCHC over Sigfox, shouldn't [sigfox-spec] be normative?

Abstract:

* You don't need to give the SCHC RFC number twice.

Sections 3.5.1.3.1, 3.5.1.3.2, 3.5.1.4:

* When might an implementer do something other than what this SHOULD says?  Or ought this be a MUST?

Section 3.5.2:

* Same issue with the first SHOULD in this section.  (The second one is fine.)

[Ballot discuss]
** Section 3.2.
  Messages sent from the Device to the Network are delivered by the
  Sigfox network (NGW) to the Network SCHC C/D + F/R through a
  callback/API with the following information:
  ...
  *  Device Geolocation (optional)

In some circumstances, sending device location information is privacy sensitive.  Please provide a pointer or summary text for the relevant security considerations.

** Section 5.  The security considerations describe a collection of security services such as authenticity, confidentiality, and replay protection for the Sigfox protocol.  However, none of these appear to be described in in this document and no references are provided.

-- Per confidentiality: although not cited, Section 5.3 (“Applicative payload encryption”) of https://storage.googleapis.com/public-assets-xd-sigfox-production-338901379285/6f9a5819-5aa1-4fde-a2b7-eb1ad5193829.pdf (which is the PDF link describing v1.6 of the SigFoxx protocol from the URL cited at [sigfox-spec]) says:

[snip start]
Payload encryption is a procedure that encrypts the payload of applicative messages over
the air, in both uplink and downlink communication. It uses an AES128 algorithm in mode
CTR with an encryption key (Ke), unique per end-point. The procedure is specified in a
dedicated Sigfox specification document.
[snip end]

What is the “dedicated Sigfox specification”?

-- Per the “The radio protocol authenticates and ensures the integrity of each message” is that described in Section 3.8 of [sigfox-spec]?

Please describe these security mechanisms or cite them.

[Ballot comment]
I support the DISCUSS position of Lars Eggert.

** This document’s stated goal per Section 1 is to “describe the recommended parameters, settings, and modes of operation to be used when SCHC is implemented over a Sigfox LPWAN.  The cited reference for “Sigfox” is:

  [sigfox-spec]
              Sigfox, "Sigfox Radio Specifications",
              .

Visiting that URL shows that the Sigfox Radio specification is versioned.  There is a v1.6/March 2022, v1.5/Feb 2020 and v1.4/Nov 2019.  Does this SCHC profile apply to all of these versions?  And future versions that will pointed to from this URL?  The text should be cleared on applicability.

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for {doc-rev}
CC @ekline

* I support Lars' DISCUSS topic.  I think things pencil out okay, but the
  bulleted text format makes it nontrivial to see which bullets contribute
  to the header and which bullets are additional text pertaining to the mode
  described in the given section.

## Nits

### S3.1

* s/which then forward/which then forwards/, I suspect

### S3.2

* Suggest moving Figure 2 after its discussion paragraph.  As currently
  placed, it mislead me into thinking that Figure 2 was an explanatory
  depiction of the L2 word size (which of course it's not =).

### S3.6.1.2

* s/can be increase when/can be increased when/

### S3.6.1.5

* s/be comprised of less than/comprise fewer than/

  or

  s/be comprised of less than/be composed of fewer than/

[Ballot discuss]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-sigfox-18

CC @larseggert

## Discuss

### Section 3.6.1.3.1, paragraph 11
```
    When using the Single-byte SCHC Header for Uplink Fragmentation, the
    Fragmentation Header MUST be of 8 bit size, and it is composed as
    follows:

    *  RuleID size: 3 bits

    *  DTag size (T): 0 bit

    *  Fragment Compressed Number (FCN) size (N): 5 bits
    *  As per [RFC8724], in the No-ACK mode the W (window) field is not
        present.

    *  Regular tile size: 11 bytes

    *  All-1 tile size: 0 to 10 bytes

    *  Inactivity Timer: Application-dependent.  The default value is 12
        hours.

    *  RCS size: 5 bits
```
The fragmentation header fields in this list add up to much more than
8 bit, some are zero, and for the inactivity timer, no encoded length
is given at all?

Many similar lists in this document have similar issues.

[Ballot comment]
## Comments

### Section 3.6.1.3.2, paragraph 8
```
    *  WINDOW_SIZE: 7 (with a maximum value of FCN=0b110)
```
0b110 is of course six - so are zero windows disallowed and the
encoding is off by one? (Same comment for other encoded window sizes
in the document.)

### Too many authors

The document has seven authors, which exceeds the recommended author limit. Has
the sponsoring AD agreed that this is appropriate?

## Nits

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

### Typos

#### Section 3.6.1.3.1, paragraph 11
```
-    The maximum SCHC Packet size is of 340 bytes.
-                                    ---
```

#### Section 4.2, paragraph 19
```
-            |<-Compoud ACK,W=0,1, C=0--| Bitmap W=0:1010110
+            |<-Compound ACK,W=0,1, C=0--| Bitmap W=0:1010110
+                      +
```

#### Section 4.2, paragraph 19
```
-            |<-Compoud ACK,W=1,C=1 ----| C=1
+            |<-Compound ACK,W=1,C=1 ----| C=1
+                      +
```

### "Authors' Addresses", paragraph 6
```
    Unabiz - Sigfox is now a Unabiz technology
```
Is that really the name of the organization?

### URLs

These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS:

* http://www.sigfox.com/
* http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-compound-ack-09.txt

### Grammar/style

#### Section 1, paragraph 4
```
sing a provisioning protocol, by out of band means, or by pre-provisioning th
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Did you mean "out-of-band"?

#### Section 3.3, paragraph 1
```
ty. For this reason, when SCHC bi-directional services are used (e.g., Ack-on
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This word is normally spelled as one.

#### Section 3.3, paragraph 1
```
All-1. The FCN is the tile index in an specific window. FCN and window numb
                                    ^^
```
Use "a" instead of "an" if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound,
e.g. "a sentence", "a university".

#### Section 3.6.1.3.1, paragraph 3
```
six - so are zero windows disallowed and the encoding is off by one? (Same c
                                    ^^^^
```
Use a comma before "and" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they
are closely connected and short).

#### Section 3.7.2.2, paragraph 5
```
ll-1 message Fragment Header contains a RCS of 4 bits to complete the two-byt
                                      ^
```
Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g.
"an article", "an hour".

#### Section 3.7.2.3, paragraph 4
```
er-Abort message header size is of 2 byte, with no padding bits. For the All-
                                    ^^^^
```
Possible agreement error. The noun "byte" seems to be countable.

#### Section 3.7.2.3, paragraph 4
```
he Sender-Abort message MUST be of 2 byte (only header with no padding). This
                                    ^^^^
```
Possible agreement error. The noun "byte" seems to be countable.

#### Section 3.7.3.2, paragraph 2
```
--------+ | 6 bits | 2 bits | 1 bit | 7 bit | 8 bit | 40 bits | next L2 W
                                        ^^^
```
Possible agreement error. The noun "bit" seems to be countable.

#### Section 3.7.3.3, paragraph 4
```
er-Abort message header size is of 2 byte, with no padding bits. For the All-
                                    ^^^^
```
Possible agreement error. The noun "byte" seems to be countable.

#### Section 3.7.3.3, paragraph 5
```
he Sender-Abort message MUST be of 2 byte (only header with no padding). This
                                    ^^^^
```
Possible agreement error. The noun "byte" seems to be countable.

## Notes

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

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

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

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-sigfox-16, 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.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-12-20):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ana@ackl.io, anaminaburo@gmail.com, draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-sigfox@ietf.org, evyncke@cisco.com, lp-wan@ietf.org, lpwan-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (SCHC over Sigfox LPWAN) 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: - 'SCHC over Sigfox
LPWAN'
  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 2022-12-20. 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 and fragmentation (SCHC)
  specification (RFC8724) describes a generic framework for application
  header compression and fragmentation modes designed for Low Power
  Wide Area Network (LPWAN) technologies.  The present document defines
  a profile of SCHC (RFC8724) over Sigfox LPWAN, and provides optimal
  parameter values and modes of operation.




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



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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

* This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

Technical Summary:
This document describes the use of SCHC (Static context Header Compression)
compression and fragmentation rules for RFC 8724 and RFC 8824 over the SIGFOX
technology.

Working Group Summary:
This document was discussed at several LPWAN interim meetings. There was never
any form of opposition against it. This I-D uses the new compound-ack fragmentation
mode described in a new doc.

Shepherd: Ana Minaburo
Responsible Area Director: Eric Vyncke


## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

  It's more of the latter. Sigfox solution has been developed by a group
  of 5-6 people very active people who implement open source code and proprietary
  stacks for SCHC. The group has accepted the solution they bring in this I-D.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  There was a global approval. Discussion centered on two slight issues:
  First, the first version of this document included the description of a new
  fragmentation mode and the use of SCHC compression and fragmentation over
  SigFox technology. The group decided to split this I-D into two documents.
  Thereby today, the group works on the draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-sigfox and
  draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-compound-ack.

  The second issue is the non-use of DTag over SIGFOX technology. The RFC8724
  does not forbid this possibility, so it should not matter.
  But the DTag size (T) indicates interleaving and might be supported or not.
  The non-use of DTag means that there is only one SCHC packet on the air
  at a time, you must wait until the inactivity timer to send another packet.


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

  No

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

  The newest implementation is under “The SCHC over Sigfox Project.”
  in github (https://github.com/schc-over-sigfox).

  Also, there are some based implementations in:
  Server code:
  https://github.com/saguilarDevel/schc-sigfox
  Device code (LoPy4):
  https://github.com/saguilarDevel/schcFox

  Furthermore, a simulator can be found here:
  https://github.com/wituwitu/WySCHC


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

  No such thing

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  Do not apply

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

  No such thing

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  No such thing

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  Certainly.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
   
    I could not find one relevant here.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    Proposed Standard, to ensure interoperation among implementations. Datatracker state
    attributes are correct.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

    Yes, and there's no IPR against this document.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

    There are seven authors, most of them from Academia.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    All is good now.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
   
    All good.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
   
    None.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
   
    Yes, as the initial I-D had been split, it refers to the second
    document: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-compound-ack.

    The draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-compound-ack document is in last call at the WG.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

    No IANA considerations; this specification describes how to use SCHC over
    Sigfox. It does not have new functionalities or formats.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
   
    None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Changed action holders to Laurent Toutain, Éric Vyncke, Juan-Carlos Zúñiga, Carles Gomez, Sandra Cespedes, Diego S. Wistuba La Torre, Sergio Aguilar, Julien Boite (IESG state changed)

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

* This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

Technical Summary:
This document describes the use of SCHC (Static context Header Compression)
compression and fragmentation rules for RFC 8724 and RFC 8824 over the SIGFOX
technology.

Working Group Summary:
This document was discussed at several LPWAN interim meetings. There was never
any form of opposition against it. This I-D uses the new compound-ack fragmentation
mode described in a new doc.

Shepherd: Ana Minaburo
Responsible Area Director: Eric Vyncke


## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

  It's more of the latter. Sigfox solution has been developed by a group
  of 5-6 people very active people who implement open source code and proprietary
  stacks for SCHC. The group has accepted the solution they bring in this I-D.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  There was a global approval. Discussion centered on two slight issues:
  First, the first version of this document included the description of a new
  fragmentation mode and the use of SCHC compression and fragmentation over
  SigFox technology. The group decided to split this I-D into two documents.
  Thereby today, the group works on the draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-sigfox and
  draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-compound-ack.

  The second issue is the non-use of DTag over SIGFOX technology. The RFC8724
  does not forbid this possibility, so it should not matter.
  But the DTag size (T) indicates interleaving and might be supported or not.
  The non-use of DTag means that there is only one SCHC packet on the air
  at a time, you must wait until the inactivity timer to send another packet.


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

  No

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

  The newest implementation is under “The SCHC over Sigfox Project.”
  in github (https://github.com/schc-over-sigfox).

  Also, there are some based implementations in:
  Server code:
  https://github.com/saguilarDevel/schc-sigfox
  Device code (LoPy4):
  https://github.com/saguilarDevel/schcFox

  Furthermore, a simulator can be found here:
  https://github.com/wituwitu/WySCHC


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

  No such thing

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  Do not apply

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

  No such thing

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  No such thing

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  Certainly.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
   
    I could not find one relevant here.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    Proposed Standard, which makes sense for such content. Datatracker state
    attributes are correct.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

    Yes, and there's no IPR against this document.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

    There are seven authors, most of them from Academia.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    All is good now.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
   
    All good.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
   
    None.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
   
    Yes, as the initial I-D had been split, it refers to the second
    document: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-compound-ack.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

    No IANA considerations; this specification describes how to use SCHC over
    Sigfox. It does not have new functionalities or formats.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
   
    None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

* This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

Technical Summary:
This document describes the use of SCHC (Static context Header Compression)
compression and fragmentation rules for RFC 8724 and RFC 8824 over the SIGFOX
technology.

Working Group Summary:
This document was discussed at several LPWAN interim meetings. There was never
any form of opposition against it. This I-D uses the new compound-ack fragmentation
mode described in a new doc.

Shepherd: Ana Minaburo
Responsible Area Director: Eric Vyncke


## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

  It's more of the latter. Sigfox solution has been developed by a group
  of 5-6 people very active people who implement open source code and proprietary
  stacks for SCHC. The group has accepted the solution they bring in this I-D.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  There was a global approval. Discussion centered on two slight issues:
  First, the first version of this document included the description of a new
  fragmentation mode and the use of SCHC compression and fragmentation over
  SigFox technology. The group decided to split this I-D into two documents.
  Thereby today, the group works on the draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-sigfox and
  draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-compound-ack.

  The second issue is the non-use of DTag over SIGFOX technology. The RFC8724
  does not forbid this possibility, so it should not matter.
  But the DTag size (T) indicates interleaving and might be supported or not.
  The non-use of DTag means that there is only one SCHC packet on the air
  at a time, you must wait until the inactivity timer to send another packet.


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

  No

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

  The newest implementation is under “The SCHC over Sigfox Project.”
  in github (https://github.com/schc-over-sigfox).

  Also, there are some based implementations in:
  Server code:
  https://github.com/saguilarDevel/schc-sigfox
  Device code (LoPy4):
  https://github.com/saguilarDevel/schcFox

  Furthermore, a simulator can be found here:
  https://github.com/wituwitu/WySCHC


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

  No such thing

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  Do not apply

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

  No such thing

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  No such thing

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  Certainly.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
   
    I could not find one relevant here.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    Proposed Standard, which makes sense for such content. Datatracker state
    attributes are correct.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

    Yes, and there's no IPR against this document.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

    There are seven authors, most of them from Academia.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    All is good now.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
   
    All good.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
   
    None.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
   
    Yes, as the initial I-D had been split, it refers to the second
    document: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-compound-ack.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

    No IANA considerations; this specification describes how to use SCHC over
    Sigfox. It does not have new functionalities or formats.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
   
    None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

* This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

Technical Summary:
This document describes the use of SCHC (Static context Header Compression)
compression and fragmentation rules for RFC 8724 and RFC 8824 over the SIGFOX
technology.

Working Group Summary:
This document was discussed at several LPWAN interim meetings. There was never
any form of opposition against it. This I-D uses the new compound-ack fragmentation
mode described in a new doc.

Shepherd: Ana Minaburo
Responsible Area Director: Eric Vyncke


## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

  It's more of the latter. Sigfox solution has been developed by a group
  of 5-6 people very active people who implement open source code and proprietary
  stacks for SCHC. The group has accepted the solution they bring in this I-D.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  There was a global approval. Discussion centered on two slight issues:
  First, the first version of this document included the description of a new
  fragmentation mode and the use of SCHC compression and fragmentation over
  SigFox technology. The group decided to split this I-D into two documents.
  Thereby today, the group works on the draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-sigfox and
  draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-compound-ack.

  The second issue is the non-use of DTag over SIGFOX technology. The RFC8724
  does not forbid this possibility, so it should not matter.
  But the DTag size (T) indicates interleaving and might be supported or not.
  The non-use of DTag means that there is only one SCHC packet on the air
  at a time, you must wait until the inactivity timer to send another packet.


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

  No

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

  The newest implementation is under “The SCHC over Sigfox Project.”
  in github (https://github.com/schc-over-sigfox).

  Also, there are some based implementations in:
  Server code:
  https://github.com/saguilarDevel/schc-sigfox
  Device code (LoPy4):
  https://github.com/saguilarDevel/schcFox

  Furthermore, a simulator can be found here:
  https://github.com/wituwitu/WySCHC


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

  No such thing

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  Do not apply

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

  No such thing

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  No such thing

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  Certainly.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
   
    I could not find one relevant here.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    Proposed Standard, which makes sense for such content. Datatracker state
    attributes are correct.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

    Yes, and there's no IPR against this document.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

    All good on that front.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    All is good now.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
   
    All good.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
   
    None.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
   
    Yes, as the initial I-D had been split, it refers to the second
    document: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-compound-ack.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

    No IANA considerations; this specification describes how to use SCHC over
    Sigfox. It does not have new functionalities or formats.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
   
    None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Carles Gomez , Diego Torre , Juan Zuniga , Julien Boite , Laurent Toutain , Sandra Cespedes , Sergio Aguilar , lpwan-chairs@ietf.org

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Carles Gomez , Diego Torre , Juan Zuniga , Laurent Toutain , Sandra Cespedes , Sergio Aguilar , lpwan-chairs@ietf.org