Meeting Information

WG info

• Charter
• Documents
• ML

Data / Time

• Date: Tuesday March 22th, 2022
• Time: 5AM US Pacific Time, 1PM CET, 8PM Shanghai

Meeting Information

• Chairs
  o Pascal Thubert <pthubert@cisco.com> (remote)
  o Alexander Pelov <a@ackl.io> (excused due to Theodore's arrival, congratulations)
  o Laurent Toutain (sitting delegate)

• Responsible AD
  o Éric Vyncke

• Minute takers
  o Ivan
  o Dominique

• Room: Grand Park Hall 2

• Agenda: on datatracker

• Meeting documents: on datatracker

• Meeting material: on datatracker

• Meeting link: Meetecho Link

• Live Minutes: CODIMD Link

WG meeting minutes (Time in CET)

[13:00] Administrivia [5min]

• Note-Well, Scribes, Agenda Bashing
• Alex (co-chair) not at the meeting this time, so the expected architecture document is skipped.
• Agenda: Alex'es talk cancelled, more time for other slots.
• WG / drafts Status
• getting close to publishing compound-ack, then nbiot, YANG model is not that far too

[13:05] Compound Ack Path to Publication [5min]

• Associated draft: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-compound-ack
• Presenter: Juan Carlos Zuniga
• under shephard review
• goes through shephard's comments
• Dominique: just read the new version, kind of late, sorry. Still a few comments. typos. I can submit pull request to source text for the typos, if you like.
• Dominique: for example, new paragraph on the position of window 00 has a few mistakes, nothing serious but needs polishing.
• Dominique: another example: distinguishing SCHC Compound ACK including W=0 with abort. The new text says the profile RFC will specify this. This pushes the problem elsewhere. It is too late to add into the LoRaWAN document since the latter is already published without it, so it would be better solve it here.
• JCZ: could be an annex in this document with tech specific indications.
• JCZ: take it to the list, and then hear from Alex and the WG and discuss

[13:15] YANG Data Model for SCHC (Hackathon + WGLC) [10min]

• Associated draft: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model
• Presenter: Laurent Toutain
• LT: covers only the published RFCs (RFC 8724 and RFC 8824), no compound ack nor new features for ACK-on-Error are in the model
• LT: YANG Data model implemented in openschc during the hackaton
• LT: Json: 2500 bytes, reduction to about 400 in CBOR
• LT: Fact about the rule: rule ID length and Rule ID value are 28 distance, so the delta is not optimal when passing to CBOR, but can be improved.

[13:23] Status of SCHC-over-SigFox [5min]

• Associated draft: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-sigfox
• Presenter: Diego Wistuba
• DW: RCS field in All-1 used to carry the number of tiles in the last window of the fragmented packet.
• developped code at the hackathon before this meeting.
• Pascal: what's steps are needed before we go to last call?
• Diego: make sure that we don't have any corner cases left, some remaining test that we need to do.

[13:31] Status of SCHC-over-NBIOT [10min]

• Associated draft: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-nbiot
• Presenter: Ana Minaburo
• Ana: 07
• NB-IoT already has fragm/reasembly and integrity protection at RLC, not using SCHC ones.
• We still can use fragmentation in the PHY layer.
• Draft currently proposed as informational, no extension to RFC 8724 or 8824, just parameters values.
• question : informational or Proposed Standard? or BCP?
• Éric: if we specify a protocol in the same way as we did for LoRaWAN or Sigfox, needs to be Standards Track.
• Éric: the RFCs imported from 3GPP are Informational, because they are probably copied/imported from 3GPP into the IETF publications.
• Ana: ok we change the status to standard
• Ana: 3GPP uses IPv6 and IPv4. Should we specify compression for IPv4?
• Éric: LPWAN working group is only chartered to work on IPv6.
• Ana: hence, we'll leave IPv4 compression to somebody else.
• TODO chairs: launch WGLC for this document.

[13:40] SCHC applied to IEEE 802.15.4 [15min]

• Associated draft: draft-gomez-6lo-schc-15dot4
• Open discussion on device and app roles, how to do P2P

• Presenter: Carles Gomez

• CG: trying to use SCHC in 802.15.4 networks, issues arose.

• discusses Dev and App termes defined in RFC8724 and 8376
• In LPWAN this terms work beacuse of the star architecture,
• In star topology, conversion of Dev (reps. App) to source and destination is clear (depends on flow direction).
• What happend when two constraind devices want to communicate in a peer to peer fashion?
• describes various real world situations
• Two options: (i) stick to the RFC 8724, define UP or DW based on Dev and App, (ii) use source and destination, just redifine the terminology
• LT: Another option possible: avoid to have a BI rule
• CG: two rules are then needed, one for each direction
• Dominique: UP/DWN do not apply to the whole rule, but to each field within the rule. Laurent's comment seemed to imply that the whole rule is UP/DWN.
• Éric: should we make this document broader than 802.15.4 as we may expect other data-link layer with the same absence of 'dev' vs. 'app'.
• CG: I will take it into account
• Pascal: Since you're specifyig a SCHC for a new MAC maybe you could have a bit that is not in the SCHC spec and that indicates whether the sender of teh frame considers himself as Dev or App.
• CG: added to the list.

[13:55] Mesh Rules [QS]

• Presenter: Laurent Toutain
• new draft we work with Ivan, regarding the implementation of OpenSCHC, in the RFC we do not define the way we choose the direction of the traffic. In OpenSCHC, we manage it by looking at the direction of the traffic
• we introduce the possibility of having two fields to identifie the SoR so that we can have multiple cores

[13:59] meeting adjourns