Interim #7 2022

Data / Time

• Date: September 20th, 2022
• Time: 7-8am US Pacific PST, 4pm CET

Meeting Information

• Agenda: on datatracker
• Meeting material: on datatracker
• Meeting link: Meetecho Link
• Live Minutes: CODIMD Link

Interim Agenda

[16:05] Administrivia [5min]

• Note-Well, Scribes, Agenda Bashing
• WG Status
• Rechartering Discussion

[16:10] Data Model Reviews [10min]

• Laurent Toutain
• Answers to be given to IESG

[16:20] NB IOT reviews [15min]

• Ana Minaburo and Eric Vyncke
• Follow-up of the AD review of NB-IoT

[16:35] LPWAN Convergence using SCHC [15min]

• Sergio Aguilar Romero
• Sergio's current research work

[16:50] Status of the SigFox drafts [5min]

• Shepherd feedback from Ana and Alexander

[16:55] LPWAN rechartering and AOB [ QS ]

• Pascal

To do

Launch WGLC for SCHC over Sigfox

Minutes

[16:05] Administrivia [5min]

• Note-Well, Scribes, Agenda Bashing
• WG Status
• Rechartering Discussion
  Pascal give the Notewell and any question to be sent to the chairs
  Blue Sheets are auto with meetecho
  Laurent add a point for Architecture draft
• How we will identify the node and named it.
  Pascal: 2 Sigfox documents
  *Ana clarified that the last call is not done already but that she
  thonks is ready.
  *The revision is not done already but it'll be in two weeks time
  Pascal reviews different documents
• YANG model last discussed on june
• NB IoT has been reviewed by Eric
• Compound-ACK needs review from Shepherd
• Sigfox is ready for LC
• Rechartering: - Pascal: Next header value is not our bussiness
  (document submitted to Intarea)

[16:10] Data Model Reviews [10min]

• Laurent Toutain
• Answers to be given to IESG
• LT : Most comments were addressed; a fil ein the repo provides the
  comments.
• LT: sent a message to get comments on ML, did not get answers so
  doing it now.
• LT: now is draft version 17.
• 2 discusses,
  * Rob Wilton to get examples. Can do, using openSCHC (see slide)
• LT: do you agree on this?
• PT: Yes
• EV: Usually the example is in XML (e.g., for IPsec flow, but I
  have no objection with JSON is easier
• PT: For a developer XML is useless I think
• LT: needed a bottle of chouchen to fix term "sensitive"
• LT: hard to discuss security since this is just modeling the RFC not
  adding stuff
• LT : find an equilibrium but I have no idea now
• Eric V: there's a wiki page were you can copy paste a YANG security
  template. There is nothing wrong to write that if you have read
  access to the rule you can decode/decompress/modify all the traffic.
  You need to provide the list of security issues, no need to solve
  them.
• LT : we need to talk about NACM. access control should be defined in
  the architecture document
• Eric: also covered in the wiki template
• LT : Other comments not so critical, it says that you can use a
  feature to make it not available;
• LT: FIDs are just numbers and unknown FIDs will raise an error, why
  make them features?
• AP: the comment is sensible though
• LT: would be heavy to augment the model and strongly type fields
  like length
• LT: we do not switch mode in runtime so there is no need to have
  commands to do that
• LT: I'll add to have the verification to have values for some CDA
• EV: the architecture is probably informational so it's an
  informative reference. As such will not delay the publication.
• PT : So, you have answers to all questions?
• LT: Yes

[16:36] NB IOT reviews [15min]

• Ana Minaburo and Eric Vyncke

• Follow-up of the AD review of NB-IoT

• AM : Review from Eric V (thanks you Eric). Several topics:
  * status of the document, std track to info ?
  * Eric: 3 use case, 2 are for infra (3GPP) and one above the 3GPP
  infra. On the latter we can be std track as long as we are very
  clear taht 5.1 and 5.2 are informational. I.e., keep 'proposed
  standard'
  * Clearly define in each section if it is informational or
  standard
  * Abstract, proposed new text change adapt to adopt.
  * Eric: I would not go in many details in the abstract.
  * E2E connection use case. Which title?
  * Eric: Up to the WG, but can be confusing
  * PT; I like SCHC over NIDD, and the term is defined in the doc so
  the doc is self-contained.
  * Capillary G/W to be moved in terminology
  * Eric: Wifi is written Wi-Fi
  * Eric: for 3GPP Gonzalo is liaison. We should go through him.
  Else up to the chair to send an email cc Gonzalo and
  statements@ietf.org (see IETF liaison) and send to 3GPP.
  Saying: we worked on this, in IETF last call, please comment if you
  like.

[16:46] LPWAN Convergence using SCHC [15min]

• Sergio Aguilar Romero

• Sergio's current research work

• Sergio presents his research. Convergenece means same app over
  several networks. Objective: same SCHC flavor over all, with
  different tiles.

• Laurent : do you want to send the fragment over any technology.
• Robert Moskowitz (from chat): If, perhaps, we look at the problem as
  how each L2 handles IPv6 header, then with SCHC as the IPv6
  protocol, the commonization is much clearer?
• PT : well it's mostly to match the MAC
• Éric Vyncke : Sergio's idea is nice, but I have doubt that a single
  device will have LoraWAN and Sigfox together ;-)
• Carles Gomez: I think it is quite interesting that there is some
  similarity across parameter values / settings across different SCHC
  over foo profiles
• AP: could be interesting for redundancy - send same fragment over
  different radios (e.g. LoRaWAN and Sigfox)

[16:50] Status of the SigFox drafts [5min]

• Shepherd feedback from Ana and Alexander

[16:55] LPWAN rechartering and AOB [ QS ]

• Pascal