Connection details ------------------ • Date: 7-8am US Pacific, 4pm CEST: https://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=100,12,5392171,1850147&h=100&date=2019-10-09&sln=14-15 Meeting link: https://cisco.webex.com/cisco/j.php?MTID=m864ee452b425d2e925351c8225554f54 Meeting number: 203 621 654 Password: 9VazGaik (98294245 from phones) Agenda ------ The general agenda for all meetings is as follows: [16:05] Administrivia [ 5min] o Note-Well, Scribes, Agenda Bashing o Status of drafts [16:10] Status of SCHC draft (IPv6/UDP) [10min] [16:20] Status of SCHC draft (CoAP) [10min] [16:30] SCHC over LoRaWAN [25min] [16:55] AOB [ 5min] Minutes takers ------------------- - Pascal Thubert - Ana Minaburo - Juan Carlos Zuniga - Carles Gomez - Julien Catalano - Dominique Attendees ------------- - Carles Gomez - Ivaylo Petrov - Ana Minaburo - Pascal Thubert - Alexander Pelov - Arunprabhu Kandasamy - Juan Carlos Zuniga - Olivier Gimenez - Laurent Toutain - Julien Catalano - Dominique Barthel - Diego Dujovne Meetig minutes ------ The general agenda for all meetings is as follows: [16:05] Administrivia [ 5min] o Note-Well, Scribes, Agenda Bashing o Status of drafts AP: procedures of IETF, note-well and IPR AP: Meeting is not recorded AP: Seek minute takers, candidates above AP: WG has achieved all the milestones, next one is the SCHC over CoAP that we will see today the state JC: There is no milestone for technologies documents? PT: The update takes a while because perhaps Suresh will be replaced, and wait that Eric Vyncke will be ready AP: At the moment that SCHC becomes RFC perhaps will be the time to update the milestones JC: missing milestones for new work PT: because the recharter is not accepted yet, but we work as if it was AP: Yes, Suresh wishes to see SCHC going RFC first PT: I understand that Suresh will not candidate for a new term, so we may see with the new AD. Could be Eric Vyncke. AP: does that answer to your question? JC: Yes, thank you [16:15] Status of SCHC draft (IPv6/UDP) [20min] DB: Gives a review of work since last IETF meeting, and notably the IESG review DB: The draft was raised at the IESG telechat on Aug 22nd, nothing special was discussed. DB: Right before the IESG telechat we received a burst of reviews DB: we have answered to most of the objections and comments, we have make some changes related to these points DB: we receive a mail from Brian Carpenter with some more discussion DB: Changes following reviews are in different git branches on Github, waiting for the reviewers to accept them before merging the branches into the master branch. PT: Publish the changes you have done, other (new) reviewers will see the changes you have done. Publish as soon as you have made a change. DB: will ping again the reviewers, if nothing heard in reasonable time will merge anyway and publish. PT: once comments are solved, the document is checked by IANA. After that, the document goes to the RFC Editor, where editorial changes can be proposed. There is a final stage called AUTH48, where authors can do a last review (in theory, in 48 hours). The RFC number is already known during AUTH48. PT: sometimes documents get paused in the publication process while awaiting normative references to be published, but this does not apply to the SCHC draft. AP: In the short term, with the responses and all.. PT: It could be quick, because reviewers can wake up and make it go ahead PT: The queue of the RFC could be very long IP: The change of XML version is making a big delay on the RFC editor PT: there is some conversion (to v3) to be done, and then the result can be checked again. You can publish with v3 directly as well. AP: Please answer individually to each reviewer, put the chairs in copy and we will push to go forward PT: great job, Dominique! DB: thanks go to my coauthors for their discussions, investigations and contributions :) [16:40] Status of SCHC draft (CoAP) [ 5min] PT: Its time to do the publish work, I have talked with Laurent to go forward, with changes that need to be made LT: there is a new version PT: I answer again with what is missing PT: you do not care about the nits, just put the once that are correct. If we receive a complain later, then we will do it. For example, remove last sentence of the abstract. LT: technical thing, is about RFC2116 in XML and I do it in markdown... LT: I check compared to the SCHC document, I have the same header and nobody has complained about this PT: change the Ref on the abstract, put the correct text I sent to you and publish eleven to push it to the publish machine AP: thanks Pascal for the shepherding for this document. [16:49] SCHC over LoRaWAN [10min] PT: for the IETF we want PDF, for interims we want PPT ;) IP: Changes on the FPorts use, now it is part of the SCHC header, some reserved values that are not used, IP: We recommend to use RuleID = 8bits, so it fits the FPort IP: LoRaWAN Network Server use FPort to determine routing of the data, so different SCHC gateways will need different FPort IP: Tile size changed to 5 bytes, to optimize the generic case IP: DTag not used, after discussion last IETF IP: Update draft template, to support BCP14 AP: there is a maximum of 5 authors per document. If there are more authors, then they are listed in the Contributors section, and there is (typically) 1-2 editors. That's why there are 2 editors in your document. OG: I think Julien is an editor for the document. PT: you (authors/contributors) may decide on this point. Contributors are authors not just people who helped on the ML. AP: you need to carefully consider how things will evolve. JC: if we are all authors, then it is fine for me being in the Contributors section. IP: reviews are needed and welcome Dominique volunteers IP: goal to get ready for WGLC for the next IETF (of course, recharter needs to happen). AP: do we need to take into account privacy considerations for the IID in this draft? JCZ: I would pay attention to the long lasting IDs that may allow tracking devices. If we are not exposing those elements, there should not be major concerns (first impression). OG: how should we address multicast in the draft? AP: we are 15 min behind time. Perhaps you can write an email on the ML and discuss about it in the next interim AP, PT: meeting is adjourned. Thanks to all. [16:55] AOB [ 5min]