Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-08
review-ietf-lpwan-overview-08-iotdir-early-chakrabarti-2018-02-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lpwan-overview
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Early Review
Team Internet of Things Directorate (iotdir)
Deadline 2017-12-01
Requested 2017-11-11
Requested by Suresh Krishnan
Authors Stephen Farrell
Draft last updated 2018-02-05
Completed reviews Intdir Early review of -07 by Bob Halley (diff)
Iotdir Early review of -08 by Samita Chakrabarti (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Paul Wouters (diff)
Rtgdir Telechat review of -07 by Andrew G. Malis (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Samita Chakrabarti
State Completed
Review review-ietf-lpwan-overview-08-iotdir-early-chakrabarti-2018-02-05
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 10)
Result Almost Ready
Completed 2018-02-05
review-ietf-lpwan-overview-08-iotdir-early-chakrabarti-2018-02-05-00
Hi Stephen,
First of all, thank you for writing up the comprehensive overview of LPWAN
technologies and their characteristics. I have read the document and the
following are my comments for IOT-DIR review.

General : Please fix the formatting and paging of the document. Some of the
figures are split between pages. The document uses loads of acronyms from
multiple technologies. A glossary of terms are useful for reference in the
beginning of the decument. Section 2:  :”Note that some…. Of this document” –
please make sure that only RFC and WG approved documents are referenced in the
reference section and remove any reference that are still individual document
at the time of publication/IESG review.

Section 2.4 – Please move the acknowledgement texts to the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
section at the end of the draft Section 2.1.2 – Table 1 records data rate for
LORA .3 – 5Kbps. For 868MHZ band; Later Table 2 records 50,000 kbps data rate
for the same band.  Is this a typo ? If not please provide explanation Table 4
and page 9 talks about DEVEUI – how are they obtained/configured/assigned on
the end-device? I suggest adding definition of terms for each technology at the
beginning of the document for easy reference. Page 12 calls out PSM, eDRX etc.
– please add their definition in the definition of terms Fig 3: labels eNB but
the document talks about eNodeB. Please make them consistent

Page 14 – describes control function and RRC function. Please provide the RRC
description/definition when RRC is first referenced in page 12. [ move this
description to earlier sections ] Also notr that section 2.2.2 is extremely
long; I would suggest breaking the section into different subsections such as
“network components”, “Network Architecture”, “Control plane” etc. Remove
section 3 and combine the content of section 3 with section 2.1.2. They seem to
have duplicate information. Fig 8 may be moved in section 2.1.2  as well.
Combine fig 9 with fig 1.

Pg 26 – refers to I.D-hong-6lo-use-cases – but I did not find it in the
reference section. Please fix. What is “Very low layer tow payload…. “ – please
fix Note ID-hong-6lo-use-case document not only support 6lowpan, but it
supports 6lo use-cases as well. Section 4.2,2 – The statement  Header
compression and privacy address IID is not quite true. There is guideline for
supporting privacy in 6lo. Please refer to RFC 8065. Section 4.3 -implies that
6lowpan and 6lo support star topologies only. That is NOT true. Both 6lowpan
and 6lo can support both star and mesh topologies. Besides 6lo supports many
different constrained networks including NFC and PLC. Please fix the section
4.3 .

Thanks,
-Samita