Connection details ------------------ • Date: 7-8am US Pacific, 4pm CET: https://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=100,12,5392171,1850147&h=100&date=2020-03-18&sln=15-16 Meeting link: https://cisco.webex.com/cisco/j.php?MTID=m77ca64c301c438e020f8803ea7b41819 Meeting number: 303 924 574 Password: t3rVDDvmf36 (83783386 from phones) Attendees --------- - Olivier Gimenez - Carles Gomez - Pascal Thubert - Juan Carlos Zuniga - Ivaylo Petrov - Julien Catalano - Vincent Audebert - Ana MInaburo - Laurent Toutain - Alexander Pelov - Sergio Aguilar Previous for cc ------------------ - Dominique Barthel - Arunprabhu Kandasamy - Ricardo Andreasen - Diego Dujovne Agenda ------ The general agenda for all meetings is as follows: [16:05] Administrivia [ 5min] o Note-Well, Scribes, Agenda Bashing o WG Status [16:10] Status of drafts [10min] [16:20] IETF 107 organization [10min] [16:30] New charter [10min] [16:40] CoAP static Context [10min] [16:50] Multicast [10min] [ ] AOB [ QS ] Minutes ------ The final agenda will be announced one week before the meeting. The general agenda for all meetings is as follows: [16:05] Administrivia [ 5min] o Note-Well, Scribes, Agenda Bashing o WG Status PT: New charter PT: agressive dates that may change PT: Think about the dates to see if they are correct to get a last call [16:10] Status of drafts [10min] AM: with Edgar we are working to get a new version with the complete solution for NB-IoT draft in Madrid, we can submit a new version for revision very soon LT: the deadline is fine for Data Model, some material exists. JCZ: waiting to do a hackathon to update the SCHC over Sigfox draft. Anyway, the proposed milestone works for this draft. PT: the milestones refer to WGLC (i.e. not to publication as RFC). Still, the dates in the milestones are an indication. PT: Talks about the different documents; PT: Ask if SCHC over PPP could be an WG item or send it to 6Man? [16:20] IETF 107 organization [10min] PT: IETF107 interim meetings for lpwan is April 21st, is a Tuesday LT: Does the area director needs to be present? PT: Is better if he is present, if you are ok, I will send the invitation [16:30] New charter [10min] PT: The multicast subject is out for the charter today, but wa can recharter to include it AP: It will be better if we included when there is a document, with a problem statement and/or solutions [16:40] CoAP static Context [10min] Ana: 4 discussion and 6 acceptation for CoAP draft, telechat for tomorrow. Ana: Major issue, security consideration, may be must be processed with IPv6/UDP PT: we have the same problem for 6LoWPAN. Say that Lower Layer are protected. Ana: The comment is that CoAP is application. The concern is more on attacks on the application layer. Ana: the problems are in the CoAP/UDP/IP compression. AP: say that we have security in L2 PT: focus on attacks on the compress form. AP: 1) anyone can send packets that are malformed. No one can use the state machine PT: there is a lower layer security that protect the compress form. Ana: proposes an answer to the group Ana: question for Roman, how small can be the AEAD nonce ? PT: topic of nonce has to be discuss per technology. There is no generic answer. Ana: input from Core group, inputs from Francesca; LT: make a global explaination to say how to compression a CoAP option in a generic way Ana: information or PS PT: we are in the gray area PT: can go to a BCP, see with Eric. Ana: UDP length discussion about the TSV standardize UDP options for the UDP length Ana: They want to block both documents LT: We can add the way this option can be done PT: there is not a problem, the description is not int he document but the protocol does not have problem to do it. AP: See with Dominique [16:50] Multicast [10min] JCZ/OG: different ways to achieve multicast delivery 1 simple : Multicast on NoAck, but no reliability 2 With AoE : unicast AoE response, (3) FEC, other mechanism? PT: (4) Trickle can be used to make mutlicast more reliable (see RPL) AP: does it work on NoA PT: packet will be sent at several times; with an exponential backoff, not all GW have to send it JCZ: scheduling protocol? PT: see RFC 6206, set covering an area, first set sends packet, JCZ: do we require overlapping coverage from multiple BSs for Trickle to work? PT: no, can be repeated on time. RFC needs to be adapted to our problem anyway. JCZ: can we have only one GW ? PT: can work with one, but sevral gives spatial diversity JulienC: a L2 protocol ? PT: can be described in a generic fashion. [ ] AOB [ QS ] OG: What about the document about IANA registry to send command? OG: On PT plate PT: Will start a discussion on the mailing list AP: Careful about the scope of such topic AP: Maybe we can add the registry in the LoRaWAN draft OG: Pascal, you said we don't want a separate registry for each technology as there will be few commands for each of them. AP: I am concerned whether there will be anything more than just assigning numbers. AP: ... OG: We discussed that for making a device rejoin we might need some mechanism and in order to do that, Pascal proposed to have something slightly more generic. AP: A great idea would be to send an email to the ML in order to discuss this further. AP: Part of my concern is related to the registry and its usage getting in the charter.