Minutes interim-2020-lpwan-06: Wed 16:00
minutes-interim-2020-lpwan-06-202003181600-00

Connection details
------------------
• Date: 7-8am US Pacific, 4pm CET:
https://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=100,12,5392171,1850147&h=100&date=2020-03-18&sln=15-16

Meeting link:
https://cisco.webex.com/cisco/j.php?MTID=m77ca64c301c438e020f8803ea7b41819
Meeting number:  303 924 574 Password: t3rVDDvmf36 (83783386 from phones)

Attendees
---------
 - Olivier Gimenez
 - Carles Gomez
 - Pascal Thubert
 - Juan Carlos Zuniga
 - Ivaylo Petrov
 - Julien Catalano
 - Vincent Audebert
 - Ana MInaburo
 - Laurent Toutain
 - Alexander Pelov
 - Sergio Aguilar

Previous for cc
------------------
 - Dominique Barthel
 - Arunprabhu Kandasamy
 - Ricardo Andreasen
 - Diego Dujovne

Agenda
------

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

[16:10] Status of drafts                   [10min]
[16:20] IETF 107 organization              [10min]
[16:30] New charter                        [10min]
[16:40] CoAP static Context                [10min]
[16:50] Multicast                          [10min]
[     ] AOB                                [ QS ]

Minutes
------
The final agenda will be announced one week before the meeting.

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

PT: New charter
PT: agressive dates that may change
PT: Think about the dates to see if they are correct to get a last call

[16:10] Status of drafts                   [10min]
AM: with Edgar we are working to get a new version with the complete solution
for NB-IoT draft in Madrid, we can submit a new version for revision very soon
LT: the deadline is fine for Data Model, some material exists. JCZ: waiting to
do a hackathon to update the SCHC over Sigfox draft. Anyway, the proposed
milestone works for this draft. PT: the milestones refer to WGLC (i.e. not to
publication as RFC). Still, the dates in the milestones are an indication. PT:
Talks about the different documents; PT: Ask if SCHC over PPP could be an WG
item or send it to 6Man?

[16:20] IETF 107 organization              [10min]
PT: IETF107 interim meetings for lpwan is April 21st, is a Tuesday
LT: Does the area director needs to be present?
PT: Is better if he is present, if you are ok, I will send the invitation

[16:30] New charter                        [10min]
PT: The multicast subject is out for the charter today, but wa can recharter to
include it AP: It will be better if we included when there is a document, with
a problem statement and/or solutions

[16:40] CoAP static Context                [10min]

Ana: 4 discussion and 6 acceptation for CoAP draft, telechat for tomorrow.
Ana: Major issue, security consideration, may be must be processed with IPv6/UDP
PT: we have the same problem for 6LoWPAN. Say that Lower Layer are protected.
Ana: The comment is that CoAP is application. The concern is more on attacks on
the application layer. Ana: the problems are in the CoAP/UDP/IP compression.
AP: say that we have security in L2 PT: focus on attacks on the compress form.
AP: 1) anyone can send packets that are malformed. No one can use the state
machine PT: there is a lower layer security that protect the compress form.
Ana: proposes an answer to the group Ana: question for Roman, how small can be
the AEAD nonce ? PT: topic of nonce has to be discuss per technology. There is
no generic answer.

Ana: input from Core group, inputs from Francesca;
LT: make a global explaination to say how to compression a CoAP option in a
generic way

Ana: information or PS
PT: we are in the gray area

PT: can go to a BCP, see with Eric.
Ana: UDP length discussion about the TSV standardize UDP options for the UDP
length Ana: They want to block both documents LT: We can add the way this
option can be done PT: there is not a problem, the description is not int he
document but the protocol does not have problem to do it. AP: See with Dominique

    [16:50] Multicast                          [10min]

JCZ/OG: different ways to achieve multicast delivery

1 simple : Multicast on NoAck, but no reliability

2 With AoE : unicast AoE response, (3) FEC, other mechanism?

PT: (4) Trickle can be used to make mutlicast more reliable (see RPL)

AP: does it work on NoA

PT: packet will be sent at several times; with an exponential backoff, not all
GW have to send it

JCZ: scheduling protocol?

PT: see RFC 6206, set covering an area, first set sends packet,

JCZ: do we require overlapping coverage  from multiple BSs for Trickle to work?
PT: no, can be repeated on time. RFC needs to be adapted to our problem anyway.

JCZ: can we have only one GW ?
PT: can work with one, but sevral gives spatial diversity

JulienC: a L2 protocol ?
PT: can be described in a generic fashion.

[     ] AOB                                [ QS ]
OG: What about the document about IANA registry to send command?
OG: On PT plate
PT: Will start a discussion on the mailing list
AP: Careful about the scope of such topic
AP: Maybe we can add the registry in the LoRaWAN draft
OG: Pascal, you said we don't want a separate registry for each technology as
there will be few commands for each of them. AP: I am concerned whether there
will be anything more than just assigning numbers. AP: ...<about the context>
OG: We discussed that for making a device rejoin we might need some mechanism
and in order to do that, Pascal proposed to have something slightly more
generic. AP: A great idea would be to send an email to the ML in order to
discuss this further. AP: Part of my concern is related to the registry and its
usage getting in the charter.