Minutes interim-2020-lpwan-09: Tue 16:00
minutes-interim-2020-lpwan-09-202006021600-00
|
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
minutes-interim-2020-lpwan-09-202006021600
Connection details
------------------
• Date: 7-8am US Pacific DST, 4pm CEST:
https://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=100,12,5392171,1850147&h=100&date=2020-05-19&sln=14-15
JOIN WEBEX MEETING
https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m45866408ff12537a6fbaefaa37cf97a0
Meeting number (access code): 619 208 505
Meeting password: tG99jRSJgJ9
JOIN BY PHONE
1-650-479-3208 Call-in toll number (US/Canada)
Tap here to call (mobile phones only, hosts not supported):
tel:%2B1-650-479-3208,,*01*619208505%23%23*01*
JOIN FROM A VIDEO SYSTEM OR APPLICATION
Dial sip:619208505@ietf.webex.com
You can also dial 173.243.2.68 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?
https://collaborationhelp.cisco.com/article/WBX000029055
Participants:
* 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
Agenda
------
[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 ]
Minutes
------
[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:
https://etherpad.ietf.org:9009/p/notes-ietf-interim-2020-lpwan-09-lpwan?useMonospaceFont=true
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
chairs
[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
datatracker.
[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]
model.
AP:
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!