Minutes IETF110: lpwan
minutes-110-lpwan-00
Meeting Minutes | IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networks (lpwan) WG | |
---|---|---|
Date and time | 2021-03-10 14:30 | |
Title | Minutes IETF110: lpwan | |
State | Active | |
Other versions | plain text | |
Last updated | 2021-03-10 |
minutes-110-lpwan-00
# LPWAN WG IETF 110 Agenda and Meeting information ============================== Meeting : IETF110 Wednesday, March 10, 2021 Venue : Online Video Link : https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/ietf110/?group=lpwan&short=&item=1 Audo Link : hhttp://mp3.conf.meetecho.com/ietf110/lpwan/1.m3u Time : Session II - 15:30-16:30 CET (60min) (UTC+1) Location : Room 4 Chairs : Pascal Thubert pthubert@cisco.com Alexander Pelov a@ackl.io Responsible AD : Éric Vyncke Minute takers : Laurent Toutain, Live minutes : https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-110-lpwan Live feeds : https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/agenda/ Other URLs : https://tools.ietf.org/wg/lpwan/ : https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lpwan/ : https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lpwan * [15:30] Administrivia (chairs) [ 5min] o Note-Well, Scribes, Agenda Bashing o Status of drafts * [15:35] LPWAN Architecture and general newcomer presentation [15min] o Associated drafts: draft-pelov-lpwan-architecture o Presenter: Alexander Pelov * [15:50] Yang Data Model for SCHC [10min] o Associated drafts: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model o Presenter: Laurent Toutain * [16:00] New ideas for SCHC-over-SigFox [15min] o Associated drafts: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-sigfox o Presenter: Juan Carlos Zuniga / Sergio Aguilar * [16:15] CoAP-over-SCHC [ 5min] o Associated drafts: draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc o Presenter: Ana Minaburo * [16:20] SCHC-over-PPP [ 5min] o Associated drafts: draft-thubert-intarea-schc-over-ppp o Presenter: Pascal Thubert * [16:25] AOB, Adjourn [ 5min] ## Minutes Times in CET (UTC+1) ### [15:30] Administrivia (chairs) [ 5min] o Note-Well, Scribes, Agenda Bashing o Status of drafts Note Well, Agenda bashing (no comments on the agenda) PT: WG status, a number of interims held Update milestone, NBIOT in feb 2022, Sigfox in Oct 2021 SCHC-CoAP just entered RFC Ed queue, schc-over-lorawan already in RFC Editor Queue yang review resquest to yang doctors ### [15:35] LPWAN Architecture and general newcomer presentation [15min] o Associated drafts: draft-pelov-lpwan-architecture o Presenter: Alexander Pelov AP: after major milestones achieved, a recap of LPWAN RFC 8376: architecture, terminology... This document: provide a reference architecture, decribes how nodes interact document introduces SCHC Devive, SCHC Gateway and SCHC Peers In SCHC device/Gw : Rule manager, rules and SCHC CD-FR COREconf exchanges between Rule Manager SCHC Peer to avoid some constrained implementation Example of Network-level SCHC Rule Mamager CORECONF/OSCORE exchanges can use SCHC CD-FR ### [15:50] Yang Data Model for SCHC [10min] o Associated drafts: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model o Presenter: Laurent Toutain Most differences in the last update are clarifications in text, yang model itself is stable Presents identifier definition logic, id types Structures: optional field (question mark) Ready for WGLC PT: any feedback about YANG doctors review? Éric: no news so far LT: no one has contacted us Alex: may need more review, but WGLC is appropriate, if only to raise attention Pascal: criteria are implementations exist, and "yang-ness" of document, happy to launch LC ### [15:58] New ideas for SCHC-over-SigFox [15min] o Associated drafts: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-sigfox o Presenter: Juan Carlos Zuniga / Sergio Aguilar JCZ reports on hackathon work Work on NoAck and AckOnErr New co-authors: Sergio Aguilar, Diego Wistuba, Sandra Céspedes Added examples New proposal: compound ACK Sergio presents the compound ACK slides The focus is on ACK-on-Error. Sigfox downlink payload is fixed size. Grouping ACKs would make sense to save messages (when there are errors). Describes format of new compound-ACK message. DB: do you mandate that padding bits are 0 in the Sigfox profiles? SA: in 8724 the ACK format has padding bits of 0 DB: 8724 recommends (but does not mandate) that padding bits be 0. Wondering if the Sigfox profile of SCHC is mandating that. Just make sure this is the case. DB: are you using bitmap compression when using the aggregation? SA: since DL payload fixed to 64 bits, we don't use it DB: sounds safer JCZ: the format might be more complex LT: padding can comprise up to 7 bits, not more JCZ: we are trying to comply with RFC 8724 to the extent possible, but we try to define this in addition PT: if it suits your case, just do it DB: it is just a new message format LT: do we generalize this to other protocols or is this only for Sigfox? PT: it looks very opportunistic to the Sigfox case... I don't see we need to define it elsewhere. We may leave it like that for now. AP: what if other technologies are interested in having a similar mechanism? JCZ: from our side we will try to document it for our use case PT: nice optimization for this case. No need to spend time trying to generalize this now DB: recommend to make it very explicit in the draft how an implementation can distinguish between a regular ACK and a compound ACK JCZ: we wanted to first hear the feedback, and now use the feedback and detailed description to include it in the next version of the draft PT: would be nice to extend tutorial slides/material with the compound ACK ## [16:14] CoAP-over-SCHC [ 5min] o Associated drafts: draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc o Presenter: Ana Minaburo Draft just entered RFC Ed queue. updates from -17 to -19 significant rework on Security Considerations sections, material provided by Ben K. also some rework on variable length CoAP header fields processing. Ask for RFC number 9024 ("aligned" with RFC 8724 :)) ### [16:19] SCHC-over-PPP [ 5min] o Associated drafts: draft-thubert-intarea-schc-over-ppp o Presenter: Pascal Thubert Work taking place at Intarea WG, but help from LPWAN WG needed. In PPP protocol, signal a new compression algortihm. Compression would be symmetric (both ends would be "gateways") Packet format presented Padding is done between the SCHC header and payload (not at the end as stated in RFC 8724) PT: is it legal within RFC8724? This exercises the peerwise model of the architecture doc. PT: any coauthors who want to work on this? PT: do we want/need applicability statements in this document? PT: anything else needs to be on the document? PT: in Smart Building, Goose (?) protocol. Very chatty, long name strings. Would love to SCHC-compress it. EV: highly recommends the LPWAN WG participants to subscribe to interea mailing list (and comment) and to attend the intrea session on Friday. Or even become co-authors ### [16:31] Adjourn [ 5min]