From nobody Wed Jan 11 01:35:22 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 922F2129AD5 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:35:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.619 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CBJ8YrIPvZPO for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:35:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (relay4-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D5C9129AC8 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:35:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mfilter49-d.gandi.net (mfilter49-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.180]) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2A8417252F; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:35:15 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter49-d.gandi.net Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([IPv6:::ffff:217.70.183.196]) by mfilter49-d.gandi.net (mfilter49-d.gandi.net [::ffff:10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yDHVuDnVR_UN; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:35:13 +0100 (CET) X-Originating-IP: 192.44.77.204 Received: from [192.168.10.104] (nat-asr-incub-b204.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [192.44.77.204]) (Authenticated sender: ana@ackl.io) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 193991724FA; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:35:12 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9F18753F-0A2A-4B5E-A6D7-C237725FB7F5" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Ana Minaburo In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:35:11 +0100 Message-Id: <729E8828-C85F-47B3-B311-AB58EF4A2FC0@ackl.io> References: <147686452963.8900.13478184401101239814.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: "Schumacher L." X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: lp-wan Subject: Re: [lp-wan] I-D Action: draft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis-02.txt X-BeenThere: lp-wan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Low-Power Wide Area Networking \(LP-WAN\), also known as LPWA or Low-Rate WAN \(LR-WAN\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:35:20 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_9F18753F-0A2A-4B5E-A6D7-C237725FB7F5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Hello, thanks you for your modifications, I will do the necessary to upload = them, as you know my draft as it is will not be published, it will be = part of the draft: draft-farrell-lpwan-overview-02 and as soon as I remember they have not = include the table, put we can discuss about having it in this draft. Thanks Ana > On 09 Jan 2017, at 13:10, Schumacher L. = wrote: >=20 > Dear Ana Minaburo, >=20 > Would it make sense to complement the table in Annex A of the IETF = draft under reference with carrier band information as follows: >=20 > = +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-------= -+ > | Technology | Range | Band | Throughput = |MAC MTU | > = +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-------= -+ > | LoRa |2-5 km urban | ISM | 0.3 to | = 256 B | > | |<15 km suburban| EU: 433, 868 MHz | 50 kbps | = | > | | | US: 915 MHz | | = | > = +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-------= -+ > | NB-IoT * | <15 km | Licensed bands ; | up: 60 kbps | = >1000B | > | | | Standalone: | down: 30 kbps | = | > | | | refarmed GSM band | | = | > = +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-------= -+ > | SIGFOX | 10 km urban | ISM | up:100/600 bps| = 12/ | > | | 50 km rural | EU: 868 MHz | down: 600 bps | = 8 B | > = +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-------= -+ > |IEEE802.15.4g| 2-3 km LoS | EU: 870-876 MHz | 4.8 kbps to | = 2047 B | > |SUN | | | 800 kbps | = | > = +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-------= -+ > |IEEE802.15.4k| < 20 km LoS | JP: 920-928 MHz | 1.5 bps to | = 16/24/ | > |LECIM | < 5 km NoLoS | | 128 kbps | = 32 B | > = +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-------= -+ > |RPMA | 65 km LoS | ISM | up: 624kbps | = 64 B | > | | 20 km NoLoS | 2.4 GHz | down: 156kbps | = | > | | | | mob: 2kbps | = | > = +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-------= -+ > |DASH-7 | 2 km | ISM | 9 kbps | = 256 B | > | | | EU: 433 MHz | 55.55 kbps | = | > | | | | 166.66 kbps | = | > = +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-------= -+ > |Weightless-w | 5 km urban | TV bands | 1 kbps to = |min 10 B| > | | | | 10 Mbps | = | > = +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-------= -+ > |Weightless-n |<5 km urban | ISM | 30 kbps to = |max 20 B| > | |<30 km suburban| EU: 868 MHz | 100kbps | = | > = +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-------= -+ > |Weightless-p | > 2 km urban | | up to 100kbps | = | > = +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-------= -+ >=20 > In addition, because the duty cycle is having a significant incidence = on the applicability of 6LoWPAN mechanisms to LPWAN technologies, along = with the adaptive data rate and the limited payload size, wouldn't it = make sense to mention the duty cycle as well? >=20 > Best regards, > LS >=20 > Le 19/10/16 =E0 10:08, internet-drafts@ietf.org = a =E9crit : >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. >>=20 >>=20 >> Title : LPWAN Survey and GAP Analysis >> Authors : Ana Minaburo >> Carles Gomez >> Laurent Toutain >> Josep PAradells >> Jon Crowcroft >> Filename : draft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis-02.txt >> Pages : 17 >> Date : 2016-10-19 >>=20 >> Abstract: >> Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) are technologies covering >> different applications based on long range, low bandwidth and low >> power operation. The use of IETF protocols in the LPWAN = technologies >> should contribute to the deployment of a wide number of = applications >> in an open and standard environment where actual devices using = LPWAN >> technologies will be able to communicate. This document makes a >> survey of the principal characteristics of these technologies and >> provides the gaps for the integration on the IETF protocol stack. >>=20 >>=20 >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis/ = >>=20 >> There's also a htmlized version available at: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis-02 = >>=20 >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> = https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis-02 = = >>=20 >>=20 >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>=20 >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ = >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> I-D-Announce mailing list >> I-D-Announce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce = >> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html = >> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt = >>=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > > Laurent SCHUMACHER > Professeur > Facult=E9 d'Informatique >=20 > T. +32 (0)81 724 980 > F. +32 (0)81 724 967 > laurent.schumacher@ieee.org > http://www.unamur.be/universite/personnes/page_view/01005249/ = > http://be.linkedin.com/pub/laurent-schumacher/0/32b/7b7 = > Universit=E9 de Namur ASBL > Rue de Bruxelles 61 - 5000 Namur > Let=92s respect the environment together. > Only print this message if necessary! --Apple-Mail=_9F18753F-0A2A-4B5E-A6D7-C237725FB7F5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Hello,

thanks you for your modifications, I = will do the necessary to upload them, as you know my draft as it is will = not be published, it will be part of the draft:
draft-farrell-lpwan-overview-02 and as soon as I remember = they have not include the table, put we can discuss about having it in = this draft.

Thanks
Ana


On 09 Jan 2017, at 13:10, Schumacher L. = <laurent.schumacher@unamur.be> wrote:

=20 =20
Dear Ana Minaburo,

Would it make sense to complement the table in Annex A of the IETF draft under reference with carrier band information as follows:

   = +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-------= -+
   | Technology  | = Range         | = Band           &nbs= p;  | Throughput    |MAC MTU |
   = +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-------= -+
   | = LoRa        |2-5 km urban   = | = ISM            = ;   | 0.3 to        | 256 B  = |
   = |             = |<15 km suburban| EU: 433, 868 MHz  | 50 kbps       = |        |
   = |             = |            &= nbsp;  | US: 915 MHz       = |            &= nbsp;  |        |
   = +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-------= -+
   | NB-IoT   *  | = <15 km        | Licensed bands = ;  | up:   60 kbps | >1000B |
   = |             = |            &= nbsp;  | Standalone:       | down: 30 kbps |        = |
   = |             = |            &= nbsp;  | refarmed GSM band = |            &= nbsp;  |        |
   = +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-------= -+
   | = SIGFOX      | 10 km urban   | = ISM            = ;   | up:100/600 bps| 12/    |
   = |             = | 50 km rural   | EU: 868 = MHz       | down: 600 bps | 8 B    |
   = +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-------= -+
   |IEEE802.15.4g| 2-3 km = LoS    | EU: 870-876 MHz   | 4.8 kbps to   | 2047 B |
   = |SUN          = |            &= nbsp;  = |            &= nbsp;      | 800 kbps      = |        |
   = +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-------= -+
   |IEEE802.15.4k| < 20 km = LoS   | JP: 920-928 MHz   | 1.5 bps to    | 16/24/ |
   = |LECIM        | < 5 km NoLoS  = |            &= nbsp;      | 128 kbps      | 32 B   = |
   = +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-------= -+
   = |RPMA         | 65 km = LoS     | = ISM            = ;   | up: 624kbps   | 64 B   |
   = |             = | 20 km NoLoS   | 2.4 = GHz           | down: 156kbps |        = |
   = |             = |            &= nbsp;  = |            &= nbsp;      | mob: 2kbps    = |        |
   = +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-------= -+
   = |DASH-7       | 2 = km          | = ISM            = ;   | 9 kbps        | 256 B  = |
   = |             = |            &= nbsp;  | EU: 433 MHz       | 55.55 kbps    = |        |
   = |             = |            &= nbsp;  = |            &= nbsp;      | 166.66 kbps   = |        |
   = +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-------= -+
   |Weightless-w | 5 km = urban    | TV = bands          | 1 kbps to     |min 10 B|
   = |             = |            &= nbsp;  = |            &= nbsp;      | 10 Mbps       = |        |
   = +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-------= -+
   |Weightless-n |<5 km = urban    | = ISM            = ;   | 30 kbps to    |max 20 B|
   = |             = |<30 km suburban| EU: 868 MHz       | 100kbps       = |        |
   = +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-------= -+
   |Weightless-p | > 2 km = urban  = |            &= nbsp;      | up to 100kbps |        = |
   = +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-------= -+

In addition, because the duty cycle is having a significant incidence on the applicability of 6LoWPAN mechanisms to LPWAN technologies, along with the adaptive data rate and the limited payload size, wouldn't it make sense to mention the duty cycle as well?

Best regards,
LS

Le 19/10/16 =E0 10:08, internet-drafts@ietf.org a = =E9crit :
A New Internet-Draft is available from =
the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.


        Title           : LPWAN Survey and GAP Analysis
        Authors         : Ana Minaburo
                          Carles Gomez
                          Laurent Toutain
                          Josep PAradells
                          Jon Crowcroft
	Filename        : draft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis-02.txt
	Pages           : 17
	Date            : 2016-10-19

Abstract:
   Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) are technologies covering
   different applications based on long range, low bandwidth and low
   power operation.  The use of IETF protocols in the LPWAN technologies
   should contribute to the deployment of a wide number of applications
   in an open and standard environment where actual devices using LPWAN
   technologies will be able to communicate.  This document makes a
   survey of the principal characteristics of these technologies and
   provides the gaps for the integration on the IETF protocol stack.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis/=


There's also a htmlized version available at:
=
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis-02

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analy=
sis-02


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of =
submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-d=
rafts/

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
I-D-Announce@ietf.org
https://www.ie=
tf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf=
/1shadow-sites.txt


--
= <gdnoibfkpkognhgj.png><= /span>

Laurent SCHUMACHER
Professeur
Facult=E9 d'Informatique

T. +32 = (0)81 724 980
F. +32 = (0)81 724 967
laurent.schumacher@ieee.org
http://www.unamur.be/universite/personnes/page_view/01005249/
http://be.linkedin.com/pub/laurent-schumacher/0/32b/7b7

Universit=E9 de Namur = ASBL
Rue de Bruxelles 61 - 5000 Namur

Let=92s respect the environment together.
Only print this = message if necessary!


= --Apple-Mail=_9F18753F-0A2A-4B5E-A6D7-C237725FB7F5-- From nobody Wed Jan 11 08:26:26 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C968129F11 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 08:26:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.62 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i6ynvQT4kXEi for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 08:26:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (relay3-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A233129F10 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 08:26:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:660:7301:3728:55bb:a0da:c611:70e8] (unknown [IPv6:2001:660:7301:3728:55bb:a0da:c611:70e8]) (Authenticated sender: alex@ackl.io) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 115C3A80D7 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:26:21 +0100 (CET) From: Alexander Pelov Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\)) Message-Id: Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:26:21 +0100 To: lp-wan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251) Archived-At: Subject: [lp-wan] Outline, SCHC Design Team meeting, January 11th X-BeenThere: lp-wan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Low-Power Wide Area Networking \(LP-WAN\), also known as LPWA or Low-Rate WAN \(LR-WAN\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 16:26:25 -0000 Dear all, Today the design team discussed the CoAP compression part. I feel that = the progress is really impressive, with the following goals: - v+1 published in two weeks (25/01) - sufficient for basic CoAP = compression implementation - v+2 published two weeks later (8/02) - more advanced (and essential) = features added See more details in the outline at the end of this mail. Best, Alexander - - - - - - - - - - - Meeting on January 11th -- Participants: Ana, Laurent, Carsten, Carles, Diego, Alexander - - - - - - - - - - - Presentation of the CoAP scenarios -- Mostly uplink traffic, context configuration, CoMI -- Discussions on the ways to compress the Message-ID over the air. = This is the CoAP proxy=E2=80=99s work, so in line with the compression. - Questions -- How to compress CBOR structures - in a given payload some parts may = be fixed, some may be variable -- New compression rule -- Use CBOR tags -- How to compress the variable URIs in CoMI GET, PUT, DELETE methods ? -- For the moment, optimize the FETCH/PATCH methods, add compression = functions for variable URI-Paths later (GET/PUT/DELETE) - TODOs -- Carsten: LWM2M trafic definition (check with @core wg) -- Carsten: CBOR template (check with @cbor wg) -- Diego, Carles: review current draft, improve readability -- Laurent and Ana: update the current draft -- Laurent: publish CoAP trafic document - Next meeting: -- 25/01 - release v+1 of the CoAP compression -- 08/02 - release v+2 of the CoAP compression with CBOR and URI-Path = template and L2MWM trafic optimization From nobody Wed Jan 11 08:52:34 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE0B41295D9; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 08:52:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OsxBPKqPJJ34; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 08:52:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFA47129434; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 08:52:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.201.11]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v0BGqRvL012557; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:52:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.217.124] (p5DC7E34C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.199.227.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3tzFLM2yhSz3Zly; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:52:27 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\)) From: Carsten Bormann Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:52:26 +0100 X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 505846346.828479-c4f1a54c62cf24c37040697384f7e885 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <382BFEB5-772A-4B16-8948-38696946E747@tzi.org> References: <148415310558.8123.2038543065662909856.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: lp-wan , cbor@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259) Archived-At: Subject: [lp-wan] CBOR templates X-BeenThere: lp-wan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Low-Power Wide Area Networking \(LP-WAN\), also known as LPWA or Low-Rate WAN \(LR-WAN\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 16:52:33 -0000 As a result of the discussion at today=E2=80=99s SCHeaC design team = meeting, I quickly wrote a CBOR tag definition for variables = (parameters? sockets?) inside a CBOR data item. While this was shaped = by the specific needs of the SCHeaC work for LPWAN, maybe it is of more = general interest in the CBOR community. =20 Feedback welcome, probably best to cbor@ietf.org where it is about the = CBOR aspects (or lpwan@ietf.org if you think this is not the right thing = to do for SCHeaC rules). Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > I-D, draft-bormann-lpwan-cbor-template-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Carsten Bormann and posted to the > IETF repository. >=20 > Name: draft-bormann-lpwan-cbor-template > Revision: 00 > Title: Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tag = for CBOR Templates > Document date: 2017-01-11 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 6 > URL: = https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bormann-lpwan-cbor-template-00.= txt > Status: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bormann-lpwan-cbor-template/ > Htmlized: = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-lpwan-cbor-template-00 >=20 >=20 > Abstract: > The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) is a data > format whose design goals include the possibility of extremely small > code size, fairly small message size, and extensibility without the > need for version negotiation. >=20 > The present document makes use of this extensibility to define a = CBOR > tag for a variable within a CBOR data item, which then could be > filled in by a separate process (e.g., from another CBOR data item). From nobody Thu Jan 12 05:48:10 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23AAE1295D0 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 05:48:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uDiHPKpn8Sfu for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 05:48:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (relay6-d.mail.gandi.net [IPv6:2001:4b98:c:538::198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F390128874 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 05:48:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mfilter18-d.gandi.net (mfilter18-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.146]) by relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB87FB8A9 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:48:03 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter18-d.gandi.net Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net ([IPv6:::ffff:217.70.183.198]) by mfilter18-d.gandi.net (mfilter18-d.gandi.net [::ffff:10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YeYczkAZXtN3 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:48:01 +0100 (CET) X-Originating-IP: 92.135.62.19 Received: from pc25.home (ARennes-656-1-410-19.w92-135.abo.wanadoo.fr [92.135.62.19]) (Authenticated sender: ana@ackl.io) by relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AE148FB8EC for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:48:01 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Ana Minaburo In-Reply-To: <148422859999.19427.2154811560363235256.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:48:01 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0BB8842E-BB2E-4214-BF50-963B9FD0B7DF@ackl.io> References: <148422859999.19427.2154811560363235256.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: lp-wan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Subject: [lp-wan] draft-toutain-lpwan-coap-traffic-00.txt X-BeenThere: lp-wan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Low-Power Wide Area Networking \(LP-WAN\), also known as LPWA or Low-Rate WAN \(LR-WAN\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:48:08 -0000 Dear LPWANers, In order to finish the CoAP compression, we decide to go forward by = describing some scenarios which describes the possible traffic in the = LPWAN networks, we also give the possible SCHC compression in the = different cases, please read the draft and tell us if you are = confortable with this solutions, if you find there are some scenarios = missing or anything that is not clear, please let us known Thanks Ana and Laurent > On 12 Jan 2017, at 14:43, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >=20 >=20 > A new version of I-D, draft-toutain-lpwan-coap-traffic-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Ana Minaburo and posted to the > IETF repository. >=20 > Name: draft-toutain-lpwan-coap-traffic > Revision: 00 > Title: CoAP Traffic > Document date: 2017-01-12 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 12 > URL: = https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-toutain-lpwan-coap-traffic-00.t= xt > Status: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-toutain-lpwan-coap-traffic/ > Htmlized: = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-toutain-lpwan-coap-traffic-00 >=20 >=20 > Abstract: > This document describes different CoAP scenarios for the SCHC > compression. It goes from the simplest exchange without > acknowledgments to a basic study of the CoMI traffic. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > The IETF Secretariat >=20 From nobody Thu Jan 12 06:17:18 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5318E1296DD for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 06:17:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -17.72 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h4kFt5a0aYMb for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 06:17:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 452321296D4 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 06:17:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=31893; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1484230632; x=1485440232; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=splTWKv6+aZLB9cycwyFNB89elgmq+Qk1q4KgL5l42I=; b=W6QD5nVuJmJ6p6WNZpjGCGXofxeIYIGJjm76RRNlAC1+8EcZ1wo3S6N4 JjHXC++zrPGmQTLm4FoEw8fj37KTKJnUUPHLbzARPmHg7gBNQAyhtjhFd YquBZhxlAcjYOS2wfQ0SN5Rif2ERJej24zskHVwJ8blBTFRdnqv+TEw4O g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AVAQCPjndY/5ldJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgnJKAQEBAQEfX4EGB41RkhSVK4IKAx8BCoV4AoF+PxQBAgEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQFjKIRpAQEBBAEBFhU6BwsQAgEIEQQBASEBBgcnCxQJCAIEAQ0FCAGIdw6yW?= =?us-ascii?q?4oWAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHYZFhGGDCYEZCiomCIIOgxgFiHYHhmC?= =?us-ascii?q?LTwGGWopyggBRgQeDNollijKEH4QSAQ8QOIFEFRgihi9zAYYogTCBDQEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,349,1477958400"; d="scan'208,217";a="371856593" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Jan 2017 14:17:10 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v0CEHAvJ022317 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:17:10 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 08:17:10 -0600 Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 08:17:10 -0600 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: Ana Minaburo , "Schumacher L." Thread-Topic: [lp-wan] I-D Action: draft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHSa+4LrScoVrbfR06AWYRcvTfSKKE04+pg Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:16:59 +0000 Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:16:57 +0000 Message-ID: <170a5c3f89f348bab0c592039010934c@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> References: <147686452963.8900.13478184401101239814.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <729E8828-C85F-47B3-B311-AB58EF4A2FC0@ackl.io> In-Reply-To: <729E8828-C85F-47B3-B311-AB58EF4A2FC0@ackl.io> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.55.22.4] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_170a5c3f89f348bab0c592039010934cXCHRCD001ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: lp-wan Subject: Re: [lp-wan] I-D Action: draft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis-02.txt X-BeenThere: lp-wan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Low-Power Wide Area Networking \(LP-WAN\), also known as LPWA or Low-Rate WAN \(LR-WAN\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:17:16 -0000 --_000_170a5c3f89f348bab0c592039010934cXCHRCD001ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Ana The table is also missing information such as SIGFOX US. You may want to correlate the values with those in the table we published i= n the IETF journal https://www.ietfjournal.org/low-power-wide-area-networks= -at-the-ietf/ Take care, Pascal From: lp-wan [mailto:lp-wan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ana Minaburo Sent: mercredi 11 janvier 2017 10:35 To: Schumacher L. Cc: lp-wan Subject: Re: [lp-wan] I-D Action: draft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis-02.txt Hello, thanks you for your modifications, I will do the necessary to upload them, = as you know my draft as it is will not be published, it will be part of the= draft: draft-farrell-lpwan-overview-02 and as soon as I remember they have not inc= lude the table, put we can discuss about having it in this draft. Thanks Ana On 09 Jan 2017, at 13:10, Schumacher L. > wrote: Dear Ana Minaburo, Would it make sense to complement the table in Annex A of the IETF draft un= der reference with carrier band information as follows: +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-----= ---+ | Technology | Range | Band | Throughput |MAC M= TU | +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-----= ---+ | LoRa |2-5 km urban | ISM | 0.3 to | 256 = B | | |<15 km suburban| EU: 433, 868 MHz | 50 kbps | = | | | | US: 915 MHz | | = | +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-----= ---+ | NB-IoT * | <15 km | Licensed bands ; | up: 60 kbps | >100= 0B | | | | Standalone: | down: 30 kbps | = | | | | refarmed GSM band | | = | +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-----= ---+ | SIGFOX | 10 km urban | ISM | up:100/600 bps| 12/ = | | | 50 km rural | EU: 868 MHz | down: 600 bps | 8 B = | +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-----= ---+ |IEEE802.15.4g| 2-3 km LoS | EU: 870-876 MHz | 4.8 kbps to | 2047= B | |SUN | | | 800 kbps | = | +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-----= ---+ |IEEE802.15.4k| < 20 km LoS | JP: 920-928 MHz | 1.5 bps to | 16/2= 4/ | |LECIM | < 5 km NoLoS | | 128 kbps | 32 B= | +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-----= ---+ |RPMA | 65 km LoS | ISM | up: 624kbps | 64 B= | | | 20 km NoLoS | 2.4 GHz | down: 156kbps | = | | | | | mob: 2kbps | = | +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-----= ---+ |DASH-7 | 2 km | ISM | 9 kbps | 256 = B | | | | EU: 433 MHz | 55.55 kbps | = | | | | | 166.66 kbps | = | +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-----= ---+ |Weightless-w | 5 km urban | TV bands | 1 kbps to |min 1= 0 B| | | | | 10 Mbps | = | +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-----= ---+ |Weightless-n |<5 km urban | ISM | 30 kbps to |max 2= 0 B| | |<30 km suburban| EU: 868 MHz | 100kbps | = | +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-----= ---+ |Weightless-p | > 2 km urban | | up to 100kbps | = | +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+-----= ---+ In addition, because the duty cycle is having a significant incidence on th= e applicability of 6LoWPAN mechanisms to LPWAN technologies, along with the= adaptive data rate and the limited payload size, wouldn't it make sense to= mention the duty cycle as well? Best regards, LS Le 19/10/16 =E0 10:08, internet-drafts@ietf.org a =E9crit : A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. Title : LPWAN Survey and GAP Analysis Authors : Ana Minaburo Carles Gomez Laurent Toutain Josep PAradells Jon Crowcroft Filename : draft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis-02.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2016-10-19 Abstract: Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) are technologies covering different applications based on long range, low bandwidth and low power operation. The use of IETF protocols in the LPWAN technologies should contribute to the deployment of a wide number of applications in an open and standard environment where actual devices using LPWAN technologies will be able to communicate. This document makes a survey of the principal characteristics of these technologies and provides the gaps for the integration on the IETF protocol stack. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis-02 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt -- Laurent SCHUMACHER Professeur Facult=E9 d'Informatique T. +32 (0)81 724 980 F. +32 (0)81 724 967 laurent.schumacher@ieee.org http://www.unamur.be/universite/personnes/page_view/01005249/ http://be.linkedin.com/pub/laurent-schumacher/0/32b/7b7 Universit=E9 de Namur ASBL Rue de Bruxelles 61 - 5000 Namur Let's respect the environment together. Only print this message if necessary! --_000_170a5c3f89f348bab0c592039010934cXCHRCD001ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Ana

 

The table is also missing information= such as SIGFOX US.

 

You may want to correlate the values = with those in the table we published in the IETF journal https://www.ietfjournal.org/low-power-wide-area-networks-at-the-ietf= /

 

Take care,

 

Pascal

 

From: l= p-wan [mailto:lp-wan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ana Minaburo
Sent: mercredi 11 janvier 2017 10:35
To: Schumacher L. <laurent.schumacher@unamur.be>
Cc: lp-wan <lp-wan@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lp-wan] I-D Action: draft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis-= 02.txt

 

Hello,

 

thanks you for your mod= ifications, I will do the necessary to upload them, as you know my draft as= it is will not be published, it will be part of the draft:

draft-farrell-lpwan-ove= rview-02 and as soon as I remember they have not include the table, put we = can discuss about having it in this draft.

 

Thanks

Ana

 

 

On 09 Jan 2017, at 13:1= 0, Schumacher L. <lauren= t.schumacher@unamur.be> wrote:

 

Dear Ana Minaburo,

Would it make sense to complement the table in Annex A of the IETF draft un= der reference with carrier band information as follows:

   +-------------+--= -------------+-------------------+---------------+--------+=
   | Technology  | Range     &n= bsp;   | Band        &nbs= p;     | Throughput    |MAC MTU |    +-------------+---------------+---------------= ----+---------------+--------+
   | LoRa        |2-5 km u= rban   | ISM         = ;      | 0.3 to      = ;  | 256 B  |
   |         &nb= sp;   |<15 km suburban| EU: 433, 868 MHz  | 50 kbps =       |        = |
   |         &nb= sp;   |         &nbs= p;     | US: 915 MHz      = ; |            =    |        |
   +-------------+---------------+---------------= ----+---------------+--------+
   | NB-IoT   *  | <15 km   =      | Licensed bands ;  | up:   60 kbps= | >1000B |
   |         &nb= sp;   |         &nbs= p;     | Standalone:      = ; | down: 30 kbps |        |
   |         &nb= sp;   |         &nbs= p;     | refarmed GSM band |    &nb= sp;          |  &nbs= p;     |
   +-------------+---------------+---------------= ----+---------------+--------+
   | SIGFOX      | 10 km urban =   | ISM          &nb= sp;    | up:100/600 bps| 12/    |
   |         &nb= sp;   | 50 km rural   | EU: 868 MHz   &n= bsp;   | down: 600 bps | 8 B    |
   +-------------+---------------+---------------= ----+---------------+--------+
   |IEEE802.15.4g| 2-3 km LoS    | EU: 870-876= MHz   | 4.8 kbps to   | 2047 B |
   |SUN         = |            &= nbsp;  |          &n= bsp;        | 800 kbps   =    |        |
   +-------------+---------------+---------------= ----+---------------+--------+
   |IEEE802.15.4k| < 20 km LoS   | JP: 920-928 M= Hz   | 1.5 bps to    | 16/24/ |
   |LECIM        | < 5 = km NoLoS  |          = ;         | 128 kbps  &nb= sp;   | 32 B   |
   +-------------+---------------+---------------= ----+---------------+--------+
   |RPMA         | 65= km LoS     | ISM      &n= bsp;        | up: 624kbps   | = 64 B   |
   |         &nb= sp;   | 20 km NoLoS   | 2.4 GHz    =        | down: 156kbps |   &nb= sp;    |
   |         &nb= sp;   |         &nbs= p;     |        = ;           | mob: 2kbps&= nbsp;   |        |
   +-------------+---------------+---------------= ----+---------------+--------+
   |DASH-7       | 2 km &n= bsp;        | ISM    = ;           | 9 kbps = ;       | 256 B  |
   |         &nb= sp;   |         &nbs= p;     | EU: 433 MHz      = ; | 55.55 kbps    |       = ; |
   |         &nb= sp;   |         &nbs= p;     |        = ;           | 166.66 kbps=    |        |
   +-------------+---------------+---------------= ----+---------------+--------+
   |Weightless-w | 5 km urban    | TV bands&nb= sp;         | 1 kbps to  =    |min 10 B|
   |         &nb= sp;   |         &nbs= p;     |        = ;           | 10 Mbps&nbs= p;      |       = ; |
   +-------------+---------------+---------------= ----+---------------+--------+
   |Weightless-n |<5 km urban    | ISM = ;            &n= bsp; | 30 kbps to    |max 20 B|
   |         &nb= sp;   |<30 km suburban| EU: 868 MHz    &nb= sp;  | 100kbps       |   =      |
   +-------------+---------------+---------------= ----+---------------+--------+
   |Weightless-p | > 2 km urban  |   &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   | up to 100kbps |        = |
   +-------------+---------------+---------------= ----+---------------+--------+

In addition, because the duty cycle is having a significant incidence on th= e applicability of 6LoWPAN mechanisms to LPWAN technologies, along with the= adaptive data rate and the limited payload size, wouldn't it make sense to= mention the duty cycle as well?

Best regards,
LS

Le 19/10/16 =E0 10:08, internet= -drafts@ietf.org a =E9crit :

A New Internet-Draft is available from th=
e on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 
 
       =
; Title           : LPWAN=
 Survey and GAP Analysis
       =
; Authors         : Ana Minaburo
       =
;            &n=
bsp;      Carles Gomez
       =
;            &n=
bsp;      Laurent Toutain
       =
;            &n=
bsp;      Josep PAradells
       =
;            &n=
bsp;      Jon Crowcroft
    Filename  &n=
bsp;     : draft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis-02.txt
       Page=
s           : 17
       =
; Date            : =
2016-10-19
 
Abstract:
   Low Power Wide Area Networks=
 (LPWAN) are technologies covering
   different applications based=
 on long range, low bandwidth and low
   power operation.  The u=
se of IETF protocols in the LPWAN technologies
   should contribute to the dep=
loyment of a wide number of applications
   in an open and standard envi=
ronment where actual devices using LPWAN
   technologies will be able to=
 communicate.  This document makes a
   survey of the principal char=
acteristics of these technologies and
   provides the gaps for the in=
tegration on the IETF protocol stack.
 
 
The IETF datatracker status page for this=
 draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/dra=
ft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis/
 
There's also a htmlized version available=
 at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-minab=
uro-lpwan-gap-analysis-02
 
A diff from the previous version is avail=
able at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?ur=
l2=3Ddraft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis-02
 
 
Please note that it may take a couple of =
minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are a=
vailable at tools.ietf.org.
 
Internet-Drafts are also available by ano=
nymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
 
_________________________________________=
______
I-D-Announce mailing list

=
I-D-Announce@ietf.org


https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce


Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html


or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

 

 

--

<gdnoi= bfkpkognhgj.png>

Laurent SCHUMACHER
Professeur
Facult=E9 d'Informatique

T. +32 (0)81 724 980
F. +32 (0)81 724 967
laurent.schumacher@ieee.org
<= span style=3D"color:#69BE28">http://www.unamur.be/universite/personnes/page= _view/01005249/
http://be.linkedin.com/pub/laurent-schumacher/0/32b/= 7b7

Universit=E9 de Namur ASBL
Rue de Bruxelles 61 - 5000 Namur

Let’s respect the environment together.
Only print this message if necessary!

 

--_000_170a5c3f89f348bab0c592039010934cXCHRCD001ciscocom_-- From nobody Tue Jan 17 05:11:23 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lp-wan@ietf.org Delivered-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F78A1293F2; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 05:11:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "\"IETF Meeting Session Request Tool\"" To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.40.3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148465868134.31978.1224458442756072678.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 05:11:21 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: lp-wan@ietf.org, lpwan-chairs@ietf.org, pthubert@cisco.com, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Subject: [lp-wan] lpwan - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 98 X-BeenThere: lp-wan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: "Low-Power Wide Area Networking \(LP-WAN\), also known as LPWA or Low-Rate WAN \(LR-WAN\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:11:21 -0000 A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Pascal Thubert, a Chair of the lpwan working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networks Area Name: Internet Area Session Requester: Pascal Thubert Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 1.5 Hours Number of Attendees: 90 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: 6lo 6tisch core detnet roll cbor Second Priority: bier netconf intarea 6man Third Priority: isis Special Requests: --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Tue Jan 17 06:15:21 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lp-wan@ietf.org Delivered-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B1501293FD; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 06:15:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "\"IETF Meeting Session Request Tool\"" To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.40.3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148466252006.31979.66531997346520516.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 06:15:20 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: lp-wan@ietf.org, lpwan-chairs@ietf.org, pthubert@cisco.com, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Subject: [lp-wan] lpwan - Update to a Meeting Session Request for IETF 98 X-BeenThere: lp-wan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: "Low-Power Wide Area Networking \(LP-WAN\), also known as LPWA or Low-Rate WAN \(LR-WAN\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:15:20 -0000 An update to a meeting session request has just been submitted by Pascal Thubert, a Chair of the lpwan working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networks Area Name: Internet Area Session Requester: Pascal Thubert Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 1.5 Hours Number of Attendees: 90 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: 6lo 6tisch core detnet roll cbor t2trg Second Priority: bier netconf intarea 6man Third Priority: isis Special Requests: --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Tue Jan 17 19:33:42 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 474E7129667 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 19:33:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.922 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sigfoxgroup.onmicrosoft.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LBdj7MH1JuLq for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 19:33:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from EUR02-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr20109.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.2.109]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2C4A129438 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 19:33:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sigfoxgroup.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-sigfox-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=n/fCr9Ynxe9VvWZKN0zbZsDFhMekmd5ScrKuMhd0NT4=; b=VBWxoGmk7sugQ02dV8wjV0KMkLqc1N3MW9LX9+QspOSwLdwhzh+GXximYk1INJ1zKn2XnQDAmANZkk6TZ/SkbYetpDpqzk7xTcheC5cIXvB0TDfOWlJdY5NoG0EjSgk9WboTu6YoEOrmcM+NmZ9g9wnzQj8Nhny8FAsvrxTHdkw= Received: from AM5PR0801MB2035.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.168.158.137) by AM5PR0801MB2035.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.168.158.137) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.860.13; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 03:33:35 +0000 Received: from AM5PR0801MB2035.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.158.137]) by AM5PR0801MB2035.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.158.137]) with mapi id 15.01.0860.012; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 03:33:35 +0000 From: Juan Carlos Zuniga To: Ana Minaburo , lp-wan Thread-Topic: [lp-wan] draft-toutain-lpwan-coap-traffic-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHSbNqGXM6eRkacZUaJY8kw7ocXj6E9miJA Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 03:33:35 +0000 Message-ID: References: <148422859999.19427.2154811560363235256.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0BB8842E-BB2E-4214-BF50-963B9FD0B7DF@ackl.io> In-Reply-To: <0BB8842E-BB2E-4214-BF50-963B9FD0B7DF@ackl.io> Accept-Language: en-CA, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=juancarlos.zuniga@sigfox.com; x-originating-ip: [104.163.149.151] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: df14ab59-a670-4821-ee6c-08d43f52c8f8 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001); SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2035; x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM5PR0801MB2035; 7:nrwaxon/EV7M9oLfAk4ed6CxV2MKgYB7g6NVPRjSGUK/JMkd7CvLPZCjGwjwua7b0m1A2WCPOFZhs81J6tqN+8fd2a5hBfp+2UX/faGdrIlG0TLBC/51cZxL+3QD7dIENJxJZzOcASLUlPCKufrhdp8Biwf9yFgPCyIwh6oaB5bn/Vyc6omajIBCUNiQ3QmixgfuUsWqbCSg9lj9dB8WrVOxtYkuw1LJLaRb8NsR63f/7a9XrAVkz3kdJL1LkD/nNd7IFnAsjbrwwO9VhvYUv8ef1VIK75JGyVoo56cSXtSEKf3idcPPPcXy4/qbtEYbIaoFLcScQnjgSlgxq8lzRQfqvJWCsRQMz7CpHXyg+qO/r53ti6oX55pNbxlMx1SI6R54xBy79By+JArPyQgKQNhhrscS7M/KyB3G4GS3g1j/bFJDaP4HDXnjqftre6GEyGYbhZ/WSZcC87K3ppefDQ== x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(120809045254105); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(6041248)(20161123560025)(20161123564025)(20161123555025)(20161123562025)(6072148); SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2035; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2035; x-forefront-prvs: 01917B1794 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(39450400003)(377454003)(13464003)(189002)(24454002)(199003)(377424004)(81156014)(25786008)(81166006)(105586002)(8676002)(106116001)(3660700001)(3280700002)(76176999)(54356999)(50986999)(33656002)(8936002)(2906002)(106356001)(7696004)(101416001)(5660300001)(66066001)(9686003)(2950100002)(74316002)(305945005)(7736002)(122556002)(5001770100001)(97736004)(92566002)(107886002)(230783001)(6506006)(189998001)(77096006)(6436002)(229853002)(6116002)(2900100001)(38730400001)(68736007)(102836003)(53936002)(99286003)(3846002)(86362001)(6306002)(55016002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2035; H:AM5PR0801MB2035.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: sigfox.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: sigfox.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Jan 2017 03:33:35.3073 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: fcbc8bb1-061e-4b94-9f70-3ad917b0c8d3 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM5PR0801MB2035 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lp-wan] draft-toutain-lpwan-coap-traffic-00.txt X-BeenThere: lp-wan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Low-Power Wide Area Networking \(LP-WAN\), also known as LPWA or Low-Rate WAN \(LR-WAN\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 03:33:41 -0000 Hi Ana, Laurent, Thanks for starting to put this informative doc together! It has been mentioned in the past that rules can be combined, allowing for = compression of more than one layer with a single rule (e.g. IP/UDP/CoAP/...= ).=20 Would you expect this behaviour to be documented in a separate document lik= e this one, or are you planning to include it as part of the main documents= (e.g. draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc)? - I personally would have = a tendency to document it in the higher layer to avoid confusion and allow = for better interoperability, but I'd like to know your views. Also, there are a few nits and typos in this document, like the figure lege= nds, etc. but since this is the 00 version I'm sure most will be easily sol= ved in the upcoming versions. Best, Juan Carlos=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: lp-wan [mailto:lp-wan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ana Minaburo > Sent: January 12, 2017 8:48 AM > To: lp-wan > Subject: [lp-wan] draft-toutain-lpwan-coap-traffic-00.txt >=20 > Dear LPWANers, >=20 > In order to finish the CoAP compression, we decide to go forward by > describing some scenarios which describes the possible traffic in the LPW= AN > networks, we also give the possible SCHC compression in the different cas= es, > please read the draft and tell us if you are confortable with this soluti= ons, if > you find there are some scenarios missing or anything that is not clear, > please let us known >=20 > Thanks >=20 > Ana and Laurent >=20 >=20 > > On 12 Jan 2017, at 14:43, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > > > > > A new version of I-D, draft-toutain-lpwan-coap-traffic-00.txt > > has been successfully submitted by Ana Minaburo and posted to the IETF > > repository. > > > > Name: draft-toutain-lpwan-coap-traffic > > Revision: 00 > > Title: CoAP Traffic > > Document date: 2017-01-12 > > Group: Individual Submission > > Pages: 12 > > URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-toutain-lpwa= n-coap- > traffic-00.txt > > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-toutain-lpwan-co= ap- > traffic/ > > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-toutain-lpwan-coap-tr= affic- > 00 > > > > > > Abstract: > > This document describes different CoAP scenarios for the SCHC > > compression. It goes from the simplest exchange without > > acknowledgments to a basic study of the CoMI traffic. > > > > > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.i= etf.org. > > > > The IETF Secretariat > > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lp-wan mailing list > lp-wan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan From nobody Thu Jan 19 01:21:09 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EA89128B37 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:21:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.819 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.819 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.981, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=telecom-bretagne.eu Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id of1pkJ0UmfRp for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:21:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr (zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr [192.108.117.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66A691293F9 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:21:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6CCE232054 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:21:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id lCkOWVUO96gA for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:21:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C594D23205E for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:21:02 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.9.2 zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr C594D23205E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telecom-bretagne.eu; s=CFDC2CFA-4654-11E5-AACD-7BCC68B6580D; t=1484817662; bh=fCW2BTg8JF+X9gtePMyM7COKcDn/ngqbUuE1BBHPvUk=; h=MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject:To:Content-Type; b=V9/gdQTgawj7xi/86fqrFUGUTlAYq6uf/i6Zpy8aOKDRekI/wJixGryAlq5Ia54In ojL3NyhlXydgYP4x+BKWE3qNtIULV62dz8YusvQEoIvyaF4EWShb2sb5VoCEYiC44Y /HM8qw1J2J14ioNxhBtWT/9UsRrHYf1pvji77qqI= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr Received: from zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 1ee920pGTRVP for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:21:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-it0-f53.google.com (mail-it0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3EC72232054 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:21:02 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-it0-f53.google.com with SMTP id r185so29718033ita.0 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:21:02 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIWvtJIPOdBC8/EPuiB8s2+6BXMqSm7yuiePYlaC65CfagiNKOW+h/k3KyV8VvyaxJSodKZn22zkTjunQ== X-Received: by 10.36.7.196 with SMTP id f187mr29632777itf.65.1484817660779; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:21:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.24.132 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:20:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <148422859999.19427.2154811560363235256.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0BB8842E-BB2E-4214-BF50-963B9FD0B7DF@ackl.io> From: Laurent Toutain Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:20:20 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Juan Carlos Zuniga Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143e2783a960c05466f0d84 Archived-At: Cc: lp-wan , Ana Minaburo Subject: Re: [lp-wan] draft-toutain-lpwan-coap-traffic-00.txt X-BeenThere: lp-wan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Low-Power Wide Area Networking \(LP-WAN\), also known as LPWA or Low-Rate WAN \(LR-WAN\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 09:21:08 -0000 --001a1143e2783a960c05466f0d84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Thanks for your comments. You are right, there will be two documents, the IPv6/UDP compression will define the basic rules for SCHC and another document will specify CoAP compression based on architecture proposed on the first one. For implementation, they can be done independently, but for LPWAN a single rule ID can cover both IPv6/UDP and CoAP compressions. Laurent On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Juan Carlos Zuniga < juancarlos.zuniga@sigfox.com> wrote: > Hi Ana, Laurent, > > Thanks for starting to put this informative doc together! > > It has been mentioned in the past that rules can be combined, allowing fo= r > compression of more than one layer with a single rule (e.g. > IP/UDP/CoAP/...). > > Would you expect this behaviour to be documented in a separate document > like this one, or are you planning to include it as part of the main > documents (e.g. draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc)? - I personally > would have a tendency to document it in the higher layer to avoid confusi= on > and allow for better interoperability, but I'd like to know your views. > > Also, there are a few nits and typos in this document, like the figure > legends, etc. but since this is the 00 version I'm sure most will be easi= ly > solved in the upcoming versions. > > Best, > > Juan Carlos > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: lp-wan [mailto:lp-wan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ana Minaburo > > Sent: January 12, 2017 8:48 AM > > To: lp-wan > > Subject: [lp-wan] draft-toutain-lpwan-coap-traffic-00.txt > > > > Dear LPWANers, > > > > In order to finish the CoAP compression, we decide to go forward by > > describing some scenarios which describes the possible traffic in the > LPWAN > > networks, we also give the possible SCHC compression in the different > cases, > > please read the draft and tell us if you are confortable with this > solutions, if > > you find there are some scenarios missing or anything that is not clear= , > > please let us known > > > > Thanks > > > > Ana and Laurent > > > > > > > On 12 Jan 2017, at 14:43, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > A new version of I-D, draft-toutain-lpwan-coap-traffic-00.txt > > > has been successfully submitted by Ana Minaburo and posted to the IET= F > > > repository. > > > > > > Name: draft-toutain-lpwan-coap-traffic > > > Revision: 00 > > > Title: CoAP Traffic > > > Document date: 2017-01-12 > > > Group: Individual Submission > > > Pages: 12 > > > URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet- > drafts/draft-toutain-lpwan-coap- > > traffic-00.txt > > > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ > doc/draft-toutain-lpwan-coap- > > traffic/ > > > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-toutain-lpwan-coap- > traffic- > > 00 > > > > > > > > > Abstract: > > > This document describes different CoAP scenarios for the SCHC > > > compression. It goes from the simplest exchange without > > > acknowledgments to a basic study of the CoMI traffic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > > > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at > tools.ietf.org. > > > > > > The IETF Secretariat > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > lp-wan mailing list > > lp-wan@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan > > _______________________________________________ > lp-wan mailing list > lp-wan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan > --=20 Laurent Toutain +--- VoIP (recommended) ---+----------- T=C3=A9l=C3=A9com Bretagne --------= ---+ | Tel: +33 2 22 06 8156 | Tel: + 33 2 99 12 7026 | Visit : | Mob: +33 6 800 75 900 | | | Fax: +33 2 22 06 8445 | Fax: +33 2 99 12 7030 | http://class.touta.in | Laurent@Touta.in | Laurent.Toutain@Telecom-Bretagne.eu | +--------------------------+----------------------------------------+ --001a1143e2783a960c05466f0d84 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi

Thanks for your comments.
You are right, there will be two documents, the IPv6/UDP compre= ssion will define the basic rules for SCHC and another document will specif= y CoAP compression based on architecture proposed on the first one.

For implementation, they can be done independently, but for LPW= AN=C2=A0 a single rule ID can cover both IPv6/UDP and CoAP compressions.
Laurent

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Juan Carlos Zuniga <juancarlos.zuniga@sigfox.com> wrote:
Hi Ana, Laurent,

Thanks for starting to put this informative doc together!

It has been mentioned in the past that rules can be combined, allowing for = compression of more than one layer with a single rule (e.g. IP/UDP/CoAP/...= ).

Would you expect this behaviour to be documented in a separate document lik= e this one, or are you planning to include it as part of the main documents= (e.g. draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc)? - I personally would = have a tendency to document it in the higher layer to avoid confusion and a= llow for better interoperability, but I'd like to know your views.

Also, there are a few nits and typos in this document, like the figure lege= nds, etc. but since this is the 00 version I'm sure most will be easily= solved in the upcoming versions.

Best,

Juan Carlos

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lp-wan [mailto:lp-wan= -bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ana Minaburo
> Sent: January 12, 2017 8:48 AM
> To: lp-wan <lp-wan@ietf.org&= gt;
> Subject: [lp-wan] draft-toutain-lpwan-coap-traffic-00.txt
>
> Dear LPWANers,
>
> In order to finish the CoAP compression, we decide to go forward by > describing some scenarios which describes the possible traffic in the = LPWAN
> networks, we also give the possible SCHC compression in the different = cases,
> please read the draft and tell us if you are confortable with this sol= utions, if
> you find there are some scenarios missing or anything that is not clea= r,
> please let us known
>
> Thanks
>
> Ana and Laurent
>
>
> > On 12 Jan 2017, at 14:43, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> >
> >
> > A new version of I-D, draft-toutain-lpwan-coap-traffic-00.tx= t
> > has been successfully submitted by Ana Minaburo and posted to the= IETF
> > repository.
> >
> > Name:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0draft= -toutain-lpwan-coap-traffic
> > Revision:=C2=A0 =C2=A000
> > Title:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 CoAP Traff= ic
> > Document date:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 2017-01-12
> > Group:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Individual= Submission
> > Pages:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 12
> > URL:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-toutain-l= pwan-coap-
> traffic-00.txt
> > Status:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-toutain-lpwan-coap-
> traffic/
> > Htmlized:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-toutain-lpwan-coap-traff= ic-
> 00
> >
> >
> > Abstract:
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0This document describes different CoAP scenarios for = the SCHC
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0compression.=C2=A0 It goes from the simplest exchange= without
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0acknowledgments to a basic study of the CoMI traffic.=
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of=
> > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at <= a href=3D"http://tools.ietf.org" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">tools= .ietf.org.
> >
> > The IETF Secretariat
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> lp-wan mailing list
> lp-wan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan

_______________________________________________
lp-wan mailing list
lp-wan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan



--
Laurent Toutain=C2=A0
+--- VoIP (recommended) = ---+----------- T=C3=A9l=C3=A9com Bretagne -----------+
| Tel: +33 2 22 = 06 8156 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| Tel: + 33 2 99 12 7026 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 | Visit :
| Mob: +33 6 800 75 900 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0|
| Fax: +33 2 22 06 8445 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0| Fax: +33 2 99 12 7030 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| =C2=A0http://class.touta.in
| Laurent@Touta.in =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 | Laurent.Toutain@Telecom-Bretagne.eu =C2=A0 =C2=A0|
+--------------= ------------+----------------------------------------+
--001a1143e2783a960c05466f0d84-- From nobody Fri Jan 20 05:32:56 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE0C129BA4 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 05:32:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -17.721 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KuBnqfKt_TPR for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 05:32:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF5F0129B9E for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 05:32:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=839; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1484919172; x=1486128772; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=VpN8Tx49c1qIc43HtTPyAgU383LQxno7B5mMEuI1v84=; b=NGhlV7kK5UA8djQ36rP2r+7f7Bd1J1uDVz+8N2EoiCbFp64klWkjZBXR n7TocsrRHqJQBH4wvt87ZS1pSdIvcXoZZekt6tqOABOLOwr5tR0Z9vjVb 7SnpIYw1qzDrS4ZDVaM+dIjZVdOxDXy9B3sMsDIQwWUjgt6VHx6Yvv110 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AXAQAqEYJY/4cNJK1eGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgz0BAQEBAR+BcI1UpzGCDIgzPxQBAgEBAQEBAQFjKIUXE1EBPkI?= =?us-ascii?q?mAQQBGoh8sRk6ikUBAQEBBgEBAQEBI4ZLjx0Fm0gBkV2Qd5JzAR84gUUVOoY1h?= =?us-ascii?q?0oHgSmBDQEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,258,1477958400"; d="scan'208";a="374214926" Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 20 Jan 2017 13:32:40 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v0KDWegk020662 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:32:40 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 07:32:39 -0600 Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 07:32:39 -0600 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: "Laurent.Toutain@imt-atlantique.fr" , lp-wan Thread-Topic: scenarii in draft-toutain-lpwan-coap-traffic-00.txt Thread-Index: AdJzIWJ6WapSTKkZRcuOmpQih6bb9w== Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:32:28 +0000 Deferred-Delivery: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:31:39 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.55.22.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [lp-wan] scenarii in draft-toutain-lpwan-coap-traffic-00.txt X-BeenThere: lp-wan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Low-Power Wide Area Networking \(LP-WAN\), also known as LPWA or Low-Rate WAN \(LR-WAN\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:32:55 -0000 Hello Laurent: Do we agree that the SCHC Gateway will have to be stateful? If so: 3.1. Scenario 3 - CoAP ack: could we consider an Ack->nack conversion, lik= e the SCHC would absorb the ack, but time out if it is not coming and then = send a nack with the Message ID? alt, it could build a list of pending acks for a period of time and sen= d only one "packed" response with a list of confirmed Message IDs at the en= d of the day? Ideally these would be options left to the technology 3.2. Scenario 4 - REST ack: same kind of logic would have SCHC GW only sen= d a Nack in case of missing Acks, providing the token. Both: could we have an option where the SCHC computes the Message ID / tok= en? If there can be a few pending, then the device could signal which with = a few bits only? Take care, Pascal