Minutes interim-2020-lpwan-05: Wed 16:00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
|Meeting Minutes||IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networks (lpwan) WG Snapshot|
|Title||Minutes interim-2020-lpwan-05: Wed 16:00|
|Other versions||plain text|
Connection details ------------------ • Date: 7-8am US Pacific, 4pm CET: https://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=100,12,5392171,1850147&h=100&date=2020-03-04&sln=15-16 Meeting link: https://cisco.webex.com/cisco/j.php?MTID=me91d56b37454056b8c5ef3b102b9da50 Meeting number: 201 266 501 Password: txCGJTrS (89245877 from phones) Attendees - Pascal Thubert - Dominique Barthel - Ivaylo Petrov - Arunprabhu Kandasamy - Olivier Gimenez - Carles Gomez - Ricardo Andreasen - Diego Dujovne - Juan Carlos Zuniga Agenda ------ [16:04] Administrivia [ 5min] o Note-Well, Scribes, Agenda Bashing PT: submit drafts by Monday. Also cut-off date for standard rate o Status of drafts PT: CoAP draft progressing well. DB: RFC Editor actions and authors' actions. DB: SCHC baseline draft: Auth48 finished. RFC8724 to be published in a few weeks/days [16:12] IETF 107 attendance / Covid-19 [10min] PT: Cisco will not allow employees to travel to Vancouver. Alex will not travel either. PT: physical meeting officially cancelled. PT: probably an interim meeting instead. Time of day to be decided. PT: for registration cancellation, get 90% refund by sending mail to email@example.com by March 16th. JCZ: is it an official IETF policy that WG meetings can't take place when both chairs are not being physically present? Is there a place where we can track the meetings that are bing cancelled? PT: does not know. JCZ: Ericsson not coming PT: expect low attendance. Cisco, Intel, not coming. DB: Orange not coming Olivier: Semtech not coming. [16:21] Rechartering in progress [10min] PT: will be discussed in tomorrow's telechat, new charter seems to go through smoothly. PT: who is interested in multicast? Olivier and Juan Carlos interested. Diego: text available? not yet [16:24] LoRaWAN IID [15min] Olivier: last meeting, proposed a NAT-like address generation. Now thinks again. DLMS need to know the IP address. Olivier: back to IP address generation from the NetSKey. Collisions solved by rekeying (i.e. rejoining if OTAA mode). Olivier: use of SCHC Rule to convey a rejoin command, or carry a network prefix? PT: why not, but write explicitely in the draft what you need. PT: could be a RuleID that says "command&control", then assign a code point for rejoin within that space. Olivier: could be useful for multicast as well. PT: should be a generic draft for this new use of SCHC Rules. PT: generic draft to desribe the use of a Rule for "command&control", and this draft to specify which codepoint to be used for Rejoin in LoraWAN. PT; if very quick, could have other draft generate the IANA registry, and this draft to allocate a codepoint into that registry. PT: it's one page. Will do it next week. PT: same can be used for OAM as well. [16:46] SCHC CoAP draft security section [15min] No slides shown. Ana integrated all comments from reviewers. On Telechat March 12th agenda. Comments mostly on Security Considerations section. Help requested. See mail sent yesterday. DB: can send you a pointer to guidance/tutorial on how to write a security considerations section https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/slides-105-edu-sessb-writing-security-considerations-01.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpbfy3QeerU Slide 23 is about extension of prior RFC's. Laurent: compressing CoAP with SCHC does not introduce new vulnerabilities. Nothing to be said about it. Dominique: still, CoAP is different from UDP/IPv6. [ ] AOB [QS]