Minutes interim-2019-lpwan-12: Wed 16:00
minutes-interim-2019-lpwan-12-201910091600-00

Meeting Minutes IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networks (lpwan) WG
Title Minutes interim-2019-lpwan-12: Wed 16:00
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2019-10-23

Meeting Minutes
minutes-interim-2019-lpwan-12-201910091600

   Connection details
------------------
•        Date: 7-8am US Pacific, 4pm CEST:
https://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=100,12,5392171,1850147&h=100&date=2019-10-09&sln=14-15
Meeting link:
https://cisco.webex.com/cisco/j.php?MTID=m864ee452b425d2e925351c8225554f54
Meeting number: 203 621 654 Password:  9VazGaik (98294245 from phones)

Agenda
------
The general agenda for all meetings is as follows:
[16:05] Administrivia                [ 5min]
    o    Note-Well, Scribes, Agenda Bashing
    o    Status of drafts

[16:10] Status of SCHC draft (IPv6/UDP)    [10min]
[16:20] Status of SCHC draft (CoAP)        [10min]
[16:30] SCHC over LoRaWAN      [25min]
[16:55] AOB                                [ 5min]

Minutes takers
-------------------

 - Pascal Thubert
 - Ana Minaburo
 - Juan Carlos Zuniga
 - Carles Gomez
 - Julien Catalano
 - Dominique

Attendees
-------------
 - Carles Gomez
 - Ivaylo Petrov
 - Ana Minaburo
 - Pascal Thubert
 - Alexander Pelov
 - Arunprabhu Kandasamy
 - Juan Carlos Zuniga
 - Olivier Gimenez
 - Laurent Toutain
 - Julien Catalano
 - Dominique Barthel
 - Diego Dujovne

Meetig minutes
------
The general agenda for all meetings is as follows:
[16:05] Administrivia                [ 5min]
    o    Note-Well, Scribes, Agenda Bashing
    o    Status of drafts
    AP: procedures of IETF, note-well and IPR
    AP: Meeting is not recorded
    AP: Seek minute takers, candidates above
    AP: WG has achieved all the milestones, next one is the SCHC over CoAP that
    we will see today the state JC: There is no milestone for technologies
    documents? PT: The update takes a while because perhaps Suresh will be
    replaced, and wait that Eric Vyncke will be ready AP: At the moment that
    SCHC becomes RFC perhaps will be the time to update the milestones JC:
    missing milestones for new work PT: because the recharter is not accepted
    yet, but we work as if it was AP: Yes, Suresh wishes to see SCHC going RFC
    first PT: I understand that Suresh will not candidate for a new term, so we
    may see with the new AD. Could be Eric Vyncke. AP: does that answer to your
    question? JC: Yes, thank you

[16:15] Status of SCHC draft (IPv6/UDP)    [20min]
   DB: Gives a review of work since last IETF meeting, and notably the IESG
   review DB: The draft was raised at the IESG telechat on Aug 22nd, nothing
   special was discussed. DB: Right before the IESG telechat we received a
   burst of reviews DB: we have answered to most of the objections and
   comments, we have make some changes related to these points DB: we receive a
   mail from Brian Carpenter with some more discussion DB: Changes following
   reviews are in different git branches on Github, waiting for the reviewers
   to accept them before merging the branches into the master branch. PT:
   Publish the changes you have done, other (new) reviewers will see the
   changes you have done. Publish as soon as you have made a change. DB: will
   ping again the reviewers, if nothing heard in reasonable time will merge
   anyway and publish. PT: once comments are solved, the document is checked by
   IANA. After that, the document goes to the RFC Editor, where editorial
   changes can be proposed. There is a final
         stage called AUTH48, where authors can do a last review (in theory, in
         48 hours). The RFC number is already known during AUTH48.
   PT: sometimes documents get paused in the publication process while awaiting
   normative references to be published, but this does not apply to the SCHC
   draft. AP: In the short term, with the responses and all.. PT: It could be
   quick, because reviewers can wake up and make it go ahead PT: The queue of
   the RFC could be very long IP: The change of XML version is making a big
   delay on the RFC editor PT: there is some conversion (to v3) to be done, and
   then the result can be checked again. You can publish with v3 directly as
   well.
  AP: Please answer individually to each reviewer, put the chairs in copy and
  we will push to go forward
   PT: great job, Dominique!
   DB: thanks go to my coauthors for their discussions, investigations and
   contributions :)

[16:40] Status of SCHC draft (CoAP)        [ 5min]
   PT: Its time to do the publish work, I have talked with Laurent to go
   forward, with changes that need to be made LT: there is a new version PT: I
   answer again with what is missing PT: you do not care about the nits, just
   put the once that are correct. If we receive a complain later, then we will
   do it. For example, remove last sentence of the abstract. LT: technical
   thing, is about RFC2116 in XML and I do it in markdown... LT: I check
   compared to the SCHC document, I have the same header and nobody has
   complained about this PT:  change the Ref on the abstract, put the correct
   text I sent to you and publish eleven to push it to the publish machine AP:
   thanks Pascal for the shepherding for this document.

[16:49] SCHC over LoRaWAN                  [10min]
   PT: for the IETF we want PDF, for interims we want PPT ;)
   IP: Changes on the FPorts use, now it is part of the SCHC header, some
   reserved values that are not used, IP: We recommend to use RuleID = 8bits,
   so it fits the FPort IP: LoRaWAN Network Server use FPort to determine
   routing of the data, so different SCHC gateways will need different FPort
   IP: Tile size changed to 5 bytes, to optimize the generic case IP: DTag not
   used, after discussion last IETF IP: Update draft template, to support BCP14
   AP: there is a maximum of 5 authors per document. If there are more authors,
   then they are listed in the Contributors section, and there is (typically)
   1-2 editors. That's why there are 2 editors
          in your document.
   OG: I think Julien is an editor for the document.
   PT: you (authors/contributors) may decide on this point. Contributors are
   authors not just people who helped on the ML. AP: you need to carefully
   consider how things will evolve. JC: if we are all authors, then it is fine
   for me being in the Contributors section. IP: reviews are needed and welcome
Dominique volunteers
   IP: goal to get ready for WGLC for the next IETF (of course, recharter needs
   to happen). AP: do we need to take into account privacy considerations for
   the IID in this draft? JCZ: I would pay attention to the long lasting IDs
   that may allow tracking devices. If we are not exposing those elements,
   there should not be major concerns (first impression). OG: how should we
   address multicast in the draft? AP: we are 15 min behind time. Perhaps you
   can write an email on the ML and discuss about it in the next interim AP,
   PT: meeting is adjourned. Thanks to all.
[16:55] AOB                                [ 5min]