Minutes interim-2020-lpwan-09: Tue 16:00

Meeting Minutes IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networks (lpwan) WG
Title Minutes interim-2020-lpwan-09: Tue 16:00
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2020-06-02

Meeting Minutes

    Connection details
    • Date: 7-8am US Pacific DST, 4pm CEST:

    Meeting number (access code): 619 208 505

    Meeting password: tG99jRSJgJ9

    1-650-479-3208 Call-in toll number (US/Canada)
    Tap here to call (mobile phones only, hosts not supported):

    Dial sip:619208505@ietf.webex.com
    You can also dial and enter your meeting number.

    Join using Microsoft Lync or Microsoft Skype for Business
    Dial sip:619208505.ietf@lync.webex.com

    Can't join the meeting?

    * Juan Carlos Zuniga, Sigfox
    * Éric Vyncke, Cisco
    * Laurent Toutain, IMT Atlantique
    * Ana Minaburo, ACKLIO
    * Pascal Thubert, Cisco
    * Ivaylo Petrov, Acklio
    * Carles Gomez, UPC
    * Peter Yee, AKAYLA
    * Olivier Gimenez
    * Julien Catalano
    * Dominique Barthel, Orange
    * Arunprabhu Kandasamy
    * Vincent Audebert
    * Alexander Pelov

    Previous for cc

    * Watson Ladd, Cloudflare
    * A Paventhan, ERNET India
    * Alexander Pelov
    * Diego Dujovne, UDP
    * Vincent Audebert
    * Ricardo Andreasen
    * Vincent Audebert
    * Sergio Aguilar


    [16:05] Administrivia                [ 5min]
    o    Note-Well, Scribes, Agenda Bashing
    o    WG Status, IETF 108

    [16:10] SCHC-over-LoRaWAN            [25min]
    [16:35] CoAP static context HC       [15min]
    [16:50] AOB                          [ QS ]


    [16:05] Administrivia                [ 5min]
    o    Note-Well, Scribes, Agenda Bashing
    o    WG Status, IETF 108
    PT: Best practice, and notewell. If you kow about any IPr please tell us.
    PT: Etherpad has changed and now i the official IETF the @ is:
    PT: Agenda is accepted
    PT: Milestones has not changed
    PT: LORAWAN is in LC and thanks to Ana for the review
    PT: CoAP draft - 80 days since LC, after with Ana presentation to see last
    inputs. PT: IETF108 will be virtual and has a cost PT: Eric V.: There is a
    process to ask the secretariat to avoid IETF-108 fee, per case
PT: Is there an objection to pay this?
- No answer
PT: Do you prefer 50 min or 100 min
- For now we stay with 50 and if you think that we need more send an e-mail to

    [16:17] SCHC-over-LoRaWAN            [25min]
    OG: Presents last changes. Implemented what was discussed at last interim
    (see slides) OG: Class A devices may not use retransmission timer because
    they are not able to receive it OG: Show two possibilities 1. using Queue
    and 2. not retransmission timer PT: If you have a feedback then apply 1 if
    you do not have any idea then do 2. Then for 2. do it only for class A if
    you can know the class DB: asking for clarification on option 2. LT:
    Conforms to Data Model PT: shepherd is Dominique, now entered into

    [16:35] CoAP static context HC       [15min]
    AM: Discussion with Magnus on the figure in Section 2.
        Magnus thinks the 2nd stack is a new thing: how rules are discovered?
        how is context established? Replied to Magnus that context
        establishment is currently out of scope.
    PT: I think Magnus has a very simple proposal. Add a line that updates RFC
    8724 to add what else is needed. AM: he wants a paragraph PT: we never
    discover the peer's capabilities. It is going to be true for this as well.
    The right info for security needs to be provisioned as well.
        [reading Magnus' 2nd big bullet]
    AP: we need to provide the same kind of list that needs to be defined by an
    implementer or new draft on how these questions are handled. Isn't it? PT:
    yes. If Anna updates 8724 to say "we need to provision this as well", that
    impacts the LoRa document as well.
        I think it is rather the data model, not a technology [SCHC over foo]
    PT: the rule does what it does. Do we care that there is a security
    association at the upper layer? Do we just apply the rule? AP: I don't
    think that we care about this. AM: to me, it is like in RoHC. Before
    sending the packet, you make a configuration, exchange context, etc. He is
    thinking like in 3G. PT: I don't think there is any change regarding SCHC
    behavior. We don't participate in the security, we just apply the rule. PT:
    I can try to interfere in this thread and explain this to Magnus. Do I try?
    LT: yes, I agree. It is out of the scope of this document. PT: I will try.
    Maybe Magnus will agree. AM: OK! DB: works for me. PT: I have a *TO-DO* :)
    LT: architecture document, can we do it right now? Is it in the charter?
    PT: just go ahead. If needed, we can recharter. [16:50] AOB                
             [ QS ]

     PT: the meeting is adjourned. Next meeting in 2 weeks.

     AP: we have two more interims before IETF 108.

     All: thanks everyone!