Subject: [6lowpan] Ready for WGLC? (Re: Latest version of IPv6 over BT-LE draft)

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 14:42:58 +0200

6LoWPANners,

we are now looking at the third WG version (-02) of this draft.

Are we ready to do a working-group last-call on this?

-- if you see something major that needs to be done before this is ready, please speak up now.
   (If you have technical comments, or maybe some editorial suggestions, these are also useful at this point, although there also will be time to comment in the actual WGLC.)

-- conversely, if you have reviewed the document and like it, please do speak up (and please do say what you have specifically looked at).

Of course, we don't want to go into a WGLC with glaring omissions (I gather Appendix A is not really a necessary part of this spec), and we also don't want to go into WGLC if the working group hasn't been able to review the document or, worse, if nobody actually cares.

Please respond to this message by Sep 16.

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: Samita Chakrabarti <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 20:14:54 -0400

Hi Carsten,

I think this draft is interesting and important too.
I am reviewing this draft and have some comments on the editorial and some technical clarification.
Will be sending comments to the authors.

Thanks,
-Samita 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 5:43 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [6lowpan] Ready for WGLC? (Re: Latest version of IPv6 over BT-LE draft)

6LoWPANners,

Gruesse, Carsten

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:58:53 +0200

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 12:48:16PM +0000, [email-masked] wrote:
 
> Latest version of our draft "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Bluetooth Low Energy"
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle/
> has been submitted. We are planning WGLC within a couple of weeks and would ask you to send any comments before that.

I had a very quick look and found it surprising that there is not
reference in the normative reference section to the Bluetooth Low
Energy specification. I think such a reference should be added
instead of just having text refering to Bluetooth 4.0.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:41:42 +0000

Hi,

That specification is very broad and not necessarily all features are normative.

Johanna

>From: ext Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-
>university.de]
>Sent: 12 September, 2011 11:59
>To: Nieminen Johanna.1 (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki)
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Latest version of IPv6 over BT-LE draft
>
>> has been submitted. We are planning WGLC within a couple of weeks and
>would ask you to send any comments before that.
>
>I had a very quick look and found it surprising that there is not reference in the
>normative reference section to the Bluetooth Low Energy specification. I think
>such a reference should be added instead of just having text refering to
>Bluetooth 4.0.
>
>/js
>
>--

---

From: "Dijk, Esko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:32:42 +0200

Hello Johanna,

just a thought - in that case, perhaps the BT 4.0 spec could be referred to informative and a specific section on BT-LE as normative?

regards,
Esko

Esko Dijk

Philips Corporate Technologies, Research
High Tech Campus 34, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Monday 12 September 2011 12:42
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Latest version of IPv6 over BT-LE draft

Hi,

Johanna

The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

---

From: "Dijk, Esko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:54:32 +0200

Dear BT-LE authors, all,

I haven't done a detailed review but I have one technical comment/question. The typical case in the I-D is a BT-LE mobile phone, connected to the internet, acting as a 6LBR and distributing an IP prefix to 6LNs. Is it the intention that an IP prefix for the 6LoWPAN can be obtained by the phone via DHCPv6 ?  If so would an ISP support this for a phone connected to their 3G network?

Obtaining an IP prefix by the 6LBR seems necessary to enable routing from a host on the internet to a 6LN.

regards,
Esko

Esko Dijk

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann
Sent: Friday 9 September 2011 14:43
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [6lowpan] Ready for WGLC? (Re: Latest version of IPv6 over BT-LE draft)

6LoWPANners,

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:55:31 +0200

> That specification is very broad and not necessarily all features are normative.

One can discuss whether its normative or not, but having no reference
at all to BT 4.0 in the references section seems somewhat odd as far
as I am concerned.

/js

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:53:12 +0000

Esko,
DHCPv6 for 6LoWPAN network.

In the current version of I-D, there's one chapter (3.2.1) describing
"IPv6 Address Configuration", which mentioned "Stateless
autoconfiguration". Stateless autoconfiguration is defined in RFC4862,
which is different from "stateful autoconfiguration" (aka DHCPv6).

Compared with 6LoWPAN over BT-LE, draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd has defined the
mechanism to configure IPv6 addresses for 6LoWPAN over 802.15.4. In
draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-17, there're several assumptions for 6lowpan-nd. It
says "All nodes in the network have an EUI-64 interface identifier in
order to do address auto-configuration and detect duplicate addresses."
Also, draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd introduces the Address Registration mechanism
and the optional DAD mechanism. DHCPv6 is not optimized for low-power and
lossy networks including 802.15.4 and BT-LE.

I think it is necessary to make the "IPv6 address configuration" for
6LoWPAN over BT-LE clear in the future revision.

Thank you!

-- 
Best Regards,
Minjun, Xi
Nokia Research Center

On 9/19/11 9:54 PM, "ext Dijk, Esko" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Dear BT-LE authors, all,
>
>I haven't done a detailed review but I have one technical
>comment/question. The typical case in the I-D is a BT-LE mobile phone,
>connected to the internet, acting as a 6LBR and distributing an IP prefix
>to 6LNs. Is it the intention that an IP prefix for the 6LoWPAN can be
>obtained by the phone via DHCPv6 ?  If so would an ISP support this for a
>phone connected to their 3G network?
>
>   (If you have technical comments, or maybe some editorial suggestions,
>these are also useful at this point, although there also will be time to
>comment in the actual WGLC.)
>
>-- conversely, if you have reviewed the document and like it, please do
>speak up (and please do say what you have specifically looked at).
>
>Of course, we don't want to go into a WGLC with glaring omissions (I
>gather Appendix A is not really a necessary part of this spec), and we
>also don't want to go into WGLC if the working group hasn't been able to
>review the document or, worse, if nobody actually cares.
>
>The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally
>protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the
>addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
>notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this
>message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the
>intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and
>destroy all copies of the original message.
>

---

From: "Dijk, Esko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:58:50 +0200

Hello  Minjun,

I don't see an issue in IPv6 address configuration in 6LNs / section 3.2.1.
Rather the question is how the 6LBR (phone) obtains IP prefix(es). I was curious whether a cellular operator would provide either
  1) an IPv6 prefix (which the phone could further use for prefix distribution into the LoWPAN)
  2) an IPv6 address (in which case the phone needs some other mechanism to obtain an IPv6 prefix - see below)

Quote from draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd:

   The 6LBRs are responsible for managing the prefix(es) assigned to the
   6LoWPAN, using manual configuration, DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation
   [RFC3633], or other mechanisms. In an isolated LoWPAN a ULA
   [RFC4193] prefix SHOULD be generated by the 6LBR.

If more is known how this is going to work eg for the topology in Fig 5, we could consider to write it in the I-D.

Esko

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday 22 September 2011 15:53
To: Dijk, Esko; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Ready for WGLC? (Re: Latest version of IPv6 over BT-LE draft)

Esko,

Thank you!

--
Best Regards,
Minjun, Xi
Nokia Research Center

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 07:42:46 +0000

Sorry about that, I misunderstood your question. I have no idea about which
prefix should be generated by the 6LBR, which is really one big issue. 
--
Best Regards,
Minjun, Xi
Nokia Research Center

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Dijk, Esko [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:59 PM
To: Xi Minjun (Nokia-NRC/Beijing); Nieminen Johanna.1 (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki);
[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [6lowpan] Ready for WGLC? (Re: Latest version of IPv6 over
BT-LE draft)

Hello  Minjun,

I don't see an issue in IPv6 address configuration in 6LNs / section 3.2.1.
Rather the question is how the 6LBR (phone) obtains IP prefix(es). I was
curious whether a cellular operator would provide either
  1) an IPv6 prefix (which the phone could further use for prefix
distribution into the LoWPAN)
  2) an IPv6 address (in which case the phone needs some other mechanism to
obtain an IPv6 prefix - see below)

If more is known how this is going to work eg for the topology in Fig 5, we
could consider to write it in the I-D.

Esko

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday 22 September 2011 15:53
To: Dijk, Esko; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Ready for WGLC? (Re: Latest version of IPv6 over
BT-LE draft)

Esko,

In the current version of I-D, there's one chapter (3.2.1) describing
"IPv6 Address Configuration", which mentioned "Stateless autoconfiguration".
Stateless autoconfiguration is defined in RFC4862, which is different from
"stateful autoconfiguration" (aka DHCPv6).

Compared with 6LoWPAN over BT-LE, draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd has defined the
mechanism to configure IPv6 addresses for 6LoWPAN over 802.15.4. In
draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-17, there're several assumptions for 6lowpan-nd. It
says "All nodes in the network have an EUI-64 interface identifier in order
to do address auto-configuration and detect duplicate addresses."
Also, draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd introduces the Address Registration mechanism
and the optional DAD mechanism. DHCPv6 is not optimized for low-power and
lossy networks including 802.15.4 and BT-LE.

I think it is necessary to make the "IPv6 address configuration" for 6LoWPAN
over BT-LE clear in the future revision.

Thank you!

--
Best Regards,
Minjun, Xi
Nokia Research Center

On 9/19/11 9:54 PM, "ext Dijk, Esko" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>connected to the internet, acting as a 6LBR and distributing an IP 
>prefix to 6LNs. Is it the intention that an IP prefix for the 6LoWPAN 
>can be obtained by the phone via DHCPv6 ?  If so would an ISP support 
>this for a phone connected to their 3G network?
>
>Philips Corporate Technologies, Research High Tech Campus 34, 
>Eindhoven, The Netherlands [email-masked]
>
>
>
>
>Subject: [6lowpan] Ready for WGLC? (Re: Latest version of IPv6 over 
>BT-LE
>draft)
>
>6LoWPANners,
>
>   (If you have technical comments, or maybe some editorial 
>suggestions, these are also useful at this point, although there also 
>will be time to comment in the actual WGLC.)
>
>also don't want to go into WGLC if the working group hasn't been able 
>to review the document or, worse, if nobody actually cares.
>
>The information contained in this message may be confidential and 
>legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely 
>for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are 
>hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or 
>reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be 
>unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the 
>sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>

The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally
protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the
addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies
of the original message.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:43:32 +0000

Hi,

We have agreed that BT 4.0 will be included in the list of normative references even though all features are not required. 

Johanna

>Sent: 19 September, 2011 16:56
>One can discuss whether its normative or not, but having no reference at all to
>BT 4.0 in the references section seems somewhat odd as far as I am
>concerned.
>
>/js
>
>--