LPWAN WG IETF 108

Agenda

[13:00] Administrivia (chairs) [ 5min]
o Note-Well, Scribes, Agenda Bashing
o Status of drafts
[13:05] draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-sigfox (Juan-Carlos Zuniga) [10min]
[13:15] draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan (Olivier Gimenez) [10min]
[13:25] draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-nbiot (Ana Minaburo) [ 5min]
[13:30] draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model (Laurent Toutain) [10min]
[13:40] draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-15 (Ana Minaburo) [ 5min]
[13:45] AOB, Adjourn

Times in UTC

during hackathon, off-line coding.
update on the draft
o use of FCN to indicate size of packets/ # of fragments. Will test in next version of PySCHC
next steps
o interop at Bangkok?
o more fine-tuning
Laurent: for tests, openSCHC core on a public server, could be used for interop.
JCZ: Good to know. We will look into that.
Ivaylo: use of sequence #, means no interleaving?
JCZ: Sigfox Seq# counter spans over multiple (frag/data) sessions. We can interleve.

-08 published two weeks ago
goes through changes in -08
o rework of retransmission timer during the interim meeting
no comment so far on -08
outcome of the WGLC?
Pascal: WGLC is finished, now working on the comments, solving the issues.
Pascal: -08 could be submitted to IESG for publication, Dominique to do his work as shepherd (write-up + check IPR + request)
Pascal: will tell Dominique the right way of submitting to IESG

shows 3GPP architecture, more complex than that described in RFC8376
3 use cases for SCHC depending on NB-IoT data transmission choice (IP, non-IP, NAS)
JCZ: in case 2, need to transfer context to visited network, complicated?
Ana: already done for RoHC. Home HLR sends context to visited network.
JCZ: would be interesting to explain in the draft.
JCZ: how about SCHC over the top of NB-IoT?
Ana: this is case 3. SCEF is used to pass the context (??)
goes on presenting fragmentation
Pascal: Transfer Blocks, can you explain again?
Ana: Transfer Block increment is 2 bytes, hence the 16 bits.
JCZ: 1000 bits not multiple of 16 bits, confusing.
Ana: need reviewers
Pascal: LoraWAN authors, could you have a look, compare sections for missing info, etc?
Ivo: volunteers
Olivier volunteers, too
Alex: no hard deadline, in the coming weeks/month.

draft is stable. On GitHub LPWAN repo.
describes the content of the draft.
Pascal: what’s the unit of time for timers?
Laurent: description of field says it’s seconds.
Alex: will submit to YANG doctors for review
Laurent reiterates draft is stable, happy with what they have now.
How about a WGLC to raise attention and bring comments in?
Pascal: vacation time. Even if we LC now, we will extend the review time into september?
Pascal: then, why not get feedback from YANG doctors before WGLC?
Alex: suggests to wait for coap-over-schc to pass IESG
Alex: how do we get a YANG doctor review?
Eric: ask for review by YANG doctor. Can help asking for this.
Alex: shoot for WGLC in Sept.
Laurent: synchronize with CORECONF.
Pascal: why?
Alex: we should not put a dependecy on CORECONF. This doc is self-standing. Let’s ship this one.

one DISCUSS remaining to solve. (there were two more, now solved)
goes over changes from -13 to -15
o better depiction of various ways of using SCHC with CoAP
o clarified uni/bidirectional terminology
still to work before issuing -16: some comments from B Kaduk
Pascal: thank a lot to Ana for hard work and to the IESG for the reviews