From nobody Wed Feb 1 09:24:50 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 7E1F31294F5 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:24:48 -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 nQwgGusqAZAO for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:24:46 -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 AB0A51294EF for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:24:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:660:7301:3728:3dae:7192:b6e6:1d0e] (unknown [IPv6:2001:660:7301:3728:3dae:7192:b6e6:1d0e]) (Authenticated sender: alex@ackl.io) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3DBE61720CE for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 18:24:44 +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 10.2 \(3259\)) Message-Id: Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 18:24:44 +0100 To: lp-wan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259) Archived-At: Subject: [lp-wan] Outline, SCHC Design Team meeting, Februrary 1st 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, 01 Feb 2017 17:24:48 -0000 Dear all, You=E2=80=99ll find in this mail the outline of the discussions of = today=E2=80=99s meeting, part of the weekly calls on SCHC. Today=E2=80=99s= discussions were on the IP/UDP draft, next week - CoAP. Best, Alexander - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -=20 Present: Ana, Laurent, Michel, Carles, Alexander, Pascal Discussion topic: IP/UDP SCHC ( draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc = ) 1) Source is now on github, using MD - Note: this is only a collaborative way of work and is = intermediate/incomplete/potentially wrong. The draft will be updated = through the standard IETF procedures. 2) Add the possibility to use compression rule IDs for the fragmentation 3) Move the "static mapping" SCHC CoAP to IP/UDP SCHC There are no major questions/issues to be clarified. The next two weeks = the authors will add the fragmentation chapter, clarify the discussed = points, and submit the -01 version for the next call (15/02). From nobody Mon Feb 6 06:32:45 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 D1C56129DD7 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 06:32:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.302 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 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_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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=cs.tcd.ie 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 6VdC0z7kHKBe for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 06:32:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4E02129DD3 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 06:32:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E8DCBE4C for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 14:32:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BvTgDBsTNIWM for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 14:32:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [134.226.36.93] (bilbo.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.93]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF1CDBDCC for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 14:32:34 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1486391555; bh=f+vRu8thGYXwABG+fgUsXvJcjHYpSf6W21u7T0XZmBI=; h=To:From:Subject:Date:From; b=On5z7uysE+ghIa47ZS6K3456EX/PjCQv4I8bnpbmzJ6UNUghHB2r5RCHh8ttm3Lre Wd951gLyjO8fplwam/A2bcrkFkQyErMhzXUk0uh8wi7w1uUKppVz+bUz/tUDHmF9Z4 Zaa30hAKbZ5hDuMeLecxbiPZTrn3Kh1lVY9G9UMw= To: lp-wan From: Stephen Farrell Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url= Message-ID: <72251cc6-cf7b-1d2a-2fb3-f0f9c068551a@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 14:32:34 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms020306060807050103010908" Archived-At: Subject: [lp-wan] comments/input for overview draft.. 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: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 14:32:45 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms020306060807050103010908 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hiya, Our hard-working chairs were asking me what the plan was for the lpwan overview draft [1]... so I made one up:-) That plan is to publish an update based on list traffic and existing comments in a week or so and to then try to hassle all the folks who've been good enough to provide text for [1] with the goal of having a nearly-finished thing around the time of IETF98. (Yes, aiming to be done so soon is probably optimistic, but we may as well try:-) So, I'd be grateful if you could take a look at [1] and send any comments you have now to the list in the next week or so. (Editorial stuff you can just send to me if you prefer.) And if you're someone who supplied text for the -00 of [1] then could you take a look at that and let me know if you'll be able to send me updated text before the cutoff for IETF98 (say by March 6th). And if you can help resolve any of the editor comments in the draft (those are all in [[double-square-brackets]]) that'd be great too. Thanks, S. PS: As before, I'll be keeping an editor's copy at [2], as of now that only differs from []1 in the date and draft version. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lpwan-overview [2] https://github.com/sftcd/lpwan-ov/blob/master/draft-ietf-lpwan-overview.t= xt --------------ms020306060807050103010908 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExDzANBglghkgBZQMEAgEFADCABgkqhkiG9w0BBwEAAKCC CvIwggUIMIID8KADAgECAhBPzaE7pzYviUJyhmHTFBdnMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBCwUAMHUxCzAJ BgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSkwJwYDVQQLEyBTdGFydENvbSBD ZXJ0aWZpY2F0aW9uIEF1dGhvcml0eTEjMCEGA1UEAxMaU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3MgMSBDbGll bnQgQ0EwHhcNMTYwMjA5MDkyODE1WhcNMTcwMjA5MDkyODE1WjBOMSIwIAYDVQQDDBlzdGVw aGVuLmZhcnJlbGxAY3MudGNkLmllMSgwJgYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhlzdGVwaGVuLmZhcnJlbGxA Y3MudGNkLmllMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAtuC0rYze/2JinSra C9F2RjGdQZjNALLcW9C3WKTwYII3wBslobmHuPEYE5JaGItmzuKnAW619R1rD/kfoNWC19N3 rBZ6UX9Cmb9D9exCwYIwVuSwjrCQWGxgCtNQTrwKzCCpI790GRiMTvxvO7UmzmBrCaBLiZW5 R0fBjK5Yn6hUhAzGBkNbkIEL28cLJqH0yVz7Kl92OlzrQqTPEts5m6cDnNdY/ADfeAX18c1r dxZqcAxhLotrCqgsVA4ilbQDMMXGTLlB5TP35HeWZuGBU7xu003rLcFLdOkD8xvpJoYZy9Kt 3oABXPS5yqtMK+XCNdqmMn+4mOtLwQSMmPCSiQIDAQABo4IBuTCCAbUwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgSw MB0GA1UdJQQWMBQGCCsGAQUFBwMCBggrBgEFBQcDBDAJBgNVHRMEAjAAMB0GA1UdDgQWBBQJ QhvwQ5Fl372Z6xqo6fdn8XejTTAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBQkgWw5Yb5JD4+3G0YrySi1J0htaDBv BggrBgEFBQcBAQRjMGEwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbTA5 BggrBgEFBQcwAoYtaHR0cDovL2FpYS5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vY2VydHMvc2NhLmNsaWVudDEu Y3J0MDgGA1UdHwQxMC8wLaAroCmGJ2h0dHA6Ly9jcmwuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3NjYS1jbGll bnQxLmNybDAkBgNVHREEHTAbgRlzdGVwaGVuLmZhcnJlbGxAY3MudGNkLmllMCMGA1UdEgQc MBqGGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tLzBGBgNVHSAEPzA9MDsGCysGAQQBgbU3AQIE MCwwKgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHmh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3BvbGljeTANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQsFAAOCAQEArzrSv2C8PlBBmGuiGrzm2Wma46/KHtXmZYS0bsd43pM66Pc/MsqPE0HD C1GzMFfwB6BfkJn8ijNSIhlgj898WzjvnpM/SO8KStjlB8719ig/xKISrOl5mX55XbFlQtX9 U6MrqRgbDIATxhD9IDr+ryvovDzChqgQj7mt2jYr4mdlRjsjod3H1VY6XglRmaaNGZfsCARM aE/TU5SXIiqauwt5KxNGYAY67QkOBs7O1FkSXpTk7+1MmzJMF4nP8QQ5n8vhVNseF+/Wm7ai 9mtnrkLbaznMsy/ULo/C2yuLUWTbZZbf4EKNmVdme6tUDgYkFjAFOblfA7W1fSPiQGagYzCC BeIwggPKoAMCAQICEGunin0K14jWUQr5WeTntOEwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQELBQAwfTELMAkGA1UE BhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFs IENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcxKTAnBgNVBAMTIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24g QXV0aG9yaXR5MB4XDTE1MTIxNjAxMDAwNVoXDTMwMTIxNjAxMDAwNVowdTELMAkGA1UEBhMC SUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xKTAnBgNVBAsTIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmlj YXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MSMwIQYDVQQDExpTdGFydENvbSBDbGFzcyAxIENsaWVudCBDQTCC ASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAL192vfDon2D9luC/dtbX64eG3XAtRmv mCSsu1d52DXsCR58zJQbCtB2/A5uFqNxWacpXGGtTCRk9dEDBlmixEd8QiLkUfvHpJX/xKnm VkS6Iye8wUbYzMsDzgnpazlPg19dnSqfhM+Cevdfa89VLnUztRr2cgmCfyO9Otrh7LJDPG+4 D8ZnAqDtVB8MKYJL6QgKyVhhaBc4y3bGWxKyXEtx7QIZZGxPwSkzK3WIN+VKNdkiwTubW5PI dopmykwvIjLPqbJK7yPwFZYekKE015OsW6FV+s4DIM8UlVS8pkIsoGGJtMuWjLL4tq2hYQuu N0jhrxK1ljz50hH23gA9cbMCAwEAAaOCAWQwggFgMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBBjAdBgNVHSUE FjAUBggrBgEFBQcDAgYIKwYBBQUHAwQwEgYDVR0TAQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADAyBgNVHR8EKzAp MCegJaAjhiFodHRwOi8vY3JsLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9zZnNjYS5jcmwwZgYIKwYBBQUHAQEE WjBYMCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRwOi8vb2NzcC5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20wMAYIKwYBBQUHMAKG JGh0dHA6Ly9haWEuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2NlcnRzL2NhLmNydDAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUJIFsOWG+ SQ+PtxtGK8kotSdIbWgwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAUTgvvGqRAW6UXaYcwyjRoQ9BBrvIwPwYDVR0g BDgwNjA0BgRVHSAAMCwwKgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHmh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3Bv bGljeTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFAAOCAgEAi+P3h+wBi4StDwECW5zhIycjBL008HACblIf26HY 0JdOruKbrWDsXUsiI0j/7Crft9S5oxvPiDtVqspBOB/y5uzSns1lZwh7sG96bYBZpcGzGxpF NjDmQbcM3yl3WFIRS4WhNrsOY14V7y2IrUGsvetsD+bjyOngCIVeC/GmsmtbuLOzJ606tEc9 uRbhjTu/b0x2Fo+/e7UkQvKzNeo7OMhijixaULyINBfCBJb+e29bLafgu6JqjOUJ9eXXj20p 6q/CW+uVrZiSW57+q5an2P2i7hP85jQJcy5j4HzA0rSiF3YPhKGAWUxKPMAVGgcYoXzWydOv Z3UDsTDTagXpRDIKQLZo02wrlxY6iMFqvlzsemVf1odhQJmi7Eh5TbxI40kDGcBOBHhwnaOu mZhLP+SWJQnjpLpSlUOj95uf1zo9oz9e0NgIJoz/tdfrBzez76xtDsK0KfUDHt1/q59BvDI7 RX6gVr0fQoCyMczNzCTcRXYHY0tq2J0oT+bsb6sH2b4WVWAiJKnSYaWDjdA70qHX4mq9MIjO /ZskmSY8wtAk24orAc0vwXgYanqNsBX5Yv4sN4Z9VyrwMdLcusP7HJgRdAGKpkR2I9U4zEsN JQJewM7S4Jalo1DyPrLpL2nTET8ZrSl5Utp1UeGp/2deoprGevfnxWB+vHNQiu85o6MxggPM MIIDyAIBATCBiTB1MQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjEpMCcG A1UECxMgU3RhcnRDb20gQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkxIzAhBgNVBAMTGlN0YXJ0 Q29tIENsYXNzIDEgQ2xpZW50IENBAhBPzaE7pzYviUJyhmHTFBdnMA0GCWCGSAFlAwQCAQUA oIICEzAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xNzAyMDYx NDMyMzRaMC8GCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEiBCCHontg/sxD1thJ3yu1rGLOMxzrW80hilejHC8T7iBX +zBsBgkqhkiG9w0BCQ8xXzBdMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQBKjALBglghkgBZQMEAQIwCgYIKoZIhvcN AwcwDgYIKoZIhvcNAwICAgCAMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMC AgEoMIGaBgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxgYwwgYkwdTELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0 Q29tIEx0ZC4xKTAnBgNVBAsTIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MSMw IQYDVQQDExpTdGFydENvbSBDbGFzcyAxIENsaWVudCBDQQIQT82hO6c2L4lCcoZh0xQXZzCB nAYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxgYyggYkwdTELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0Q29t IEx0ZC4xKTAnBgNVBAsTIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MSMwIQYD VQQDExpTdGFydENvbSBDbGFzcyAxIENsaWVudCBDQQIQT82hO6c2L4lCcoZh0xQXZzANBgkq hkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQBD+Z9M7JzNEcUYY+sCUb0FMQPaofgIAVbNv1rFS11TJ+In5hQbDngq H6vr5RLBmx4vcusXja9nIjOub9vy93tLSOvga9NvcYv+taGFMi56gYYahCOU6ayi1yd9WFo5 sDY9XlvLZVhHZ1jYNwjVcm2LwehTit+D1WCgob5PE1/Raro2DNDf7vUaIgjx9NkI0fGUpcRA 5aFvJW3GhUB6i02XnxdTCNZ36J84dsjlQArMBF4lAAmRDiwaeeLctZPzAX9i8rsvck3Om7cx KGko13XXWwL3r/26E6iyz+Kfhbq33wCUz9+eULS64/iMvfd3SqnGAM3FPQi7FMXDmrHx8moJ AAAAAAAA --------------ms020306060807050103010908-- From nobody Wed Feb 8 14:31:02 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 E2C3D12A04E for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:31:00 -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 eRZ9IKBcHMOe for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:30:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from violet.upc.es (violet.upc.es [147.83.2.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00BCB12962C for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:30:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from entelserver.upc.edu (entelserver.upc.es [147.83.39.4]) by violet.upc.es (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v18MUulx013594 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 23:30:56 +0100 Received: from webmail.entel.upc.edu (webmail.entel.upc.edu [147.83.39.6]) by entelserver.upc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 714DB1D53C1; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 23:30:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from 83.49.25.173 by webmail.entel.upc.edu with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 23:31:21 +0100 Message-ID: <97cbeb62d21c082f6e66845944f55d1f.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 23:31:21 +0100 From: "Carles Gomez Montenegro" To: lp-wan@ietf.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21-1.fc14 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at violet X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: ACL matched, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.3.9 (violet.upc.es [147.83.2.51]); Wed, 08 Feb 2017 23:30:56 +0100 (CET) Archived-At: Subject: [lp-wan] Reordering? 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, 08 Feb 2017 22:31:01 -0000 Dear LPWANners, In order to design the mechanism for fragmentation (of IPv6 packets) over LPWAN technologies, we need to know whether reordering of L2 data units can happen between the entity performing fragmentation and the one performing reassembly. Given the star topology that is typical of Sigfox and LoRaWAN (i.e. the technologies considered in the WG that need fragmentation functionality), an unconfirmed assumption has often been that reordering will not happen. However, is this true? That is: can reordering happen in Sigfox and LoRaWAN? If yes, to what extent? Thanks in advance, Carles From nobody Thu Feb 9 12:39:37 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 AEFD31295AA for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:39:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.487 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.487 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.887] 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 Y3Y_9MBzRrKx for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:39:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (relay6-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 179E1129461 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:39:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mfilter2-d.gandi.net (mfilter2-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.140]) by relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65B64FB8A9 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 21:39:32 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter2-d.gandi.net Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net ([IPv6:::ffff:217.70.183.198]) by mfilter2-d.gandi.net (mfilter2-d.gandi.net [::ffff:10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0cevM6wQYRzV for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 21:39:30 +0100 (CET) X-Originating-IP: 37.164.178.174 Received: from [192.168.43.129] (unknown [37.164.178.174]) (Authenticated sender: alex@ackl.io) by relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F07D3FB89F for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 21:39:29 +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 10.2 \(3259\)) Message-Id: Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 21:39:27 +0100 To: lp-wan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259) Archived-At: Subject: [lp-wan] Outline, SCHC Design Team meeting, Februrary 8th 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, 09 Feb 2017 20:39:35 -0000 Dear all, You=E2=80=99ll find in this mail the outline of the discussions of = yesterday's meeting, part of the weekly calls on SCHC. Today=E2=80=99s = discussions were primarily on the CoAP draft, with some minor = discussions on the IP/UDP draft. Next week is the finalization of the = IP/UDP draft and its publishing of -01 version + discussion on the ML. Best, Alexander - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -=20 Present: Ana, Laurent, Carles, Alexander, Pascal Discussion topic: IP/UDP SCHC ( draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc = ) - IP/UDP + Fragmentation - Question on fragmentation window size (and related values), which = depend on the underlaying technology - how are values put in the draft. = The idea is to have parameters (e.g. K+M+N), with recommended values per = technology in a separate table in the draft. Discussion topic: CoAP SCHC ( draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-00 = ) - CoAP - The major difference between CoAP and IP/UDP is that it is asymmetric = (e.g. REQ/RESP) - This leads to questions on how to compress this asymmetric trafic = (different rules / marking directions in existing rules) - The chosen design is to add a field "direction" - bidirectional / = uplink / downlink.=20 - IP/UDP rules being symmetrical will be all bidirectional. CoAP = rules will depend. - Compressing variable-length fields is less trivial, as the length is = not known ahead of time. A new compression function was added for these = fields.=20 - A request will be made for the CoMI draft to relax the requirement of = MUST confirming a message to SHOULD. There are several reasons behind = this request, one of the major ones being that the CON is redundant with = an application-level ACK, which taken along with the timers on a = different time-scale than usual may lead to unnecessary trafic. - For removing the "MUST" constraint for CoAP Observe (and more = generic CoAP) use over LPWAN we might consider following the way it was = done for CoAP over TCP and add an appendix, which specifies the = modification. Chairs' note: Generally both drafts are advancing pretty well. IP/UDP = should be ready for general discussion next week. The design team has = taken a pragmatic approach with the CoAP SCHC, which will also ensure = timely delivery of the draft, as well as simplified operation. Advanced = scenarios may be discussed later on the ML. From nobody Sun Feb 19 17:47:34 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 A4DBE129617 for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 17:47:32 -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_H4=-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 UB1ZQ1JvqLAS for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 17:47:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from EUR01-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-ve1eur01on0135.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.1.135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72EF9129428 for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 17:47:29 -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=FVlNfd80T5d/7q8H4cA7rJULYSgrMjsgK0Dy8mRyyUE=; b=KWFIlXSz/Ipk/KwmNPv4S/1jErYApNUHualvRUv1n6njwU9YJZNNRYQ88jxHHiN2dehW+7dAGVjQB8UUJm5cZ5nWC8cZik7G97BgVQY361UKPFMsZ4vd2B+fGwCnR7cZQiff0dQR1uCoRO5Bed8AELZA9m0l7gKlOp12wyp47qg= Received: from AM5PR0801MB2035.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.168.158.137) by AM5PR0801MB2036.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.168.158.138) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.919.13; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 01:47:26 +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 15.01.0919.015; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 01:47:26 +0000 From: Juan Carlos Zuniga To: Carles Gomez Montenegro , "lp-wan@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [lp-wan] Reordering? Thread-Index: AQHSglsME7lHSTnx80+j0AiUgO/qmqFxLqjw Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 01:47:26 +0000 Message-ID: References: <97cbeb62d21c082f6e66845944f55d1f.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu> In-Reply-To: <97cbeb62d21c082f6e66845944f55d1f.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu> 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: [192.252.136.10] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 1f55ec7f-a936-42f5-1401-08d459326c17 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001); SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2036; x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM5PR0801MB2036; 7:cpJK7asFOjHKyaz0Scu7vcWHWomcxfuNC22F1OIotXCoqXeJ1jf2Bq7nt2DYQvrV/BNxYkQyooP+Kjd7Kwpk7Ob6qns3cqLtfHcZQkPsD2ha/ulJoWBXqQhP8I7r0v87MbtluUx48SWJguOouyeCcgvJvFwfdh42/e5rmJ0SnCGWeJnH5FT2A+Ura79g9TLRFmfRG2mqq6P/LT0dCxAYXSIqdey3vlxl/mbXlWPwJEZ5HG64hVeRRl6hDAc66hal8qhn7XGfFOogO05skHRJ4ItZP6Y0koCL3UaWm9RkqaVx57Ct5sc2XMH7H4d4WBHowY9Y2Tp+Pj7lfDa5CMw1ng== x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6041248)(20161123560025)(20161123562025)(20161123555025)(20161123558025)(20161123564025)(6072148); SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2036; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2036; x-forefront-prvs: 02243C58C6 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(39450400003)(51874003)(189002)(199003)(13464003)(377454003)(469094003)(53484002)(99286003)(305945005)(9686003)(2501003)(3660700001)(92566002)(6506006)(7696004)(68736007)(74316002)(86362001)(2950100002)(7736002)(33656002)(3846002)(2900100001)(55016002)(25786008)(101416001)(6306002)(6436002)(77096006)(2906002)(229853002)(66066001)(122556002)(3280700002)(106116001)(76176999)(102836003)(6116002)(53936002)(97736004)(106356001)(38730400002)(189998001)(5660300001)(2171002)(54356999)(6246003)(53546006)(81156014)(81166006)(8936002)(8676002)(105586002)(50986999); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2036; 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: 20 Feb 2017 01:47:26.1249 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: fcbc8bb1-061e-4b94-9f70-3ad917b0c8d3 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM5PR0801MB2036 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lp-wan] Reordering? 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: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 01:47:32 -0000 Hello Carles, You are right: due to the star topology and also to the infrequent number o= f messages (compared to other Internet technologies), we do not foresee hav= ing misordering issues. However, it would be important to make sure that a single fragment loss wou= ld not cause a full packet retransmission. I hope this helps. Best, Juan Carlos > -----Original Message----- > From: lp-wan [mailto:lp-wan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Carles Gomez > Montenegro > Sent: February 8, 2017 5:31 PM > To: lp-wan@ietf.org > Subject: [lp-wan] Reordering? >=20 > Dear LPWANners, >=20 > In order to design the mechanism for fragmentation (of IPv6 packets) over > LPWAN technologies, we need to know whether reordering of L2 data units > can happen between the entity performing fragmentation and the one > performing reassembly. >=20 > Given the star topology that is typical of Sigfox and LoRaWAN (i.e. the > technologies considered in the WG that need fragmentation functionality), > an unconfirmed assumption has often been that reordering will not happen. > However, is this true? >=20 > That is: can reordering happen in Sigfox and LoRaWAN? If yes, to what > extent? >=20 > Thanks in advance, >=20 > Carles >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lp-wan mailing list > lp-wan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan From nobody Sun Feb 19 22:09:29 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 682D9129883 for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 22:09:27 -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 ffggd8d9rNW5 for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 22:09:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from violet.upc.es (violet.upc.es [147.83.2.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5521712987D for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 22:09:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from entelserver.upc.edu (entelserver.upc.es [147.83.39.4]) by violet.upc.es (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v1K69Mos024830; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 07:09:22 +0100 Received: from webmail.entel.upc.edu (webmail.entel.upc.edu [147.83.39.6]) by entelserver.upc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC7C1D53C1; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 07:09:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from 83.44.218.33 by webmail.entel.upc.edu with HTTP; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 07:10:01 +0100 Message-ID: <88ceb10dc7f84f98f47bf982f60ab872.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <97cbeb62d21c082f6e66845944f55d1f.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu> Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 07:10:01 +0100 From: "Carles Gomez Montenegro" To: "Juan Carlos Zuniga" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21-1.fc14 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at violet X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: ACL matched, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.3.9 (violet.upc.es [147.83.2.51]); Mon, 20 Feb 2017 07:09:22 +0100 (CET) Archived-At: Cc: "lp-wan@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lp-wan] Reordering? 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: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 06:09:27 -0000 Hello Juan Carlos, > Hello Carles, > > You are right: due to the star topology and also to the infrequent number > of messages (compared to other Internet technologies), we do not foresee > having misordering issues. Thanks a lot for this valuable feedback. > However, it would be important to make sure that a single fragment loss > would not cause a full packet retransmission. We plan to publish the draft containing both the mechanisms for IP/UDP header compression and also for fragmentation very soon. For the latter, we currently consider at least two main fragment delivery options: i) one without LPWAN-level reliability (i.e. no LPWAN-level acknowledgments and no fragment retransmission) and ii) another one with reliability. For reliable fragment delivery, we are defining use of selective acknowledgments, therefore single-fragment (and most likely combinations of multiple-fragment) losses will only trigger retransmissions of those fragments that have been lost. > I hope this helps. It does help! Cheers, Carles > Best, > > Juan Carlos From nobody Tue Feb 21 16:14:40 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 3C10712946C for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 16:14:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.788 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.788 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_H2=-1.887, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 gul4-ZfsYa4l for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 16:14:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from EUR01-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-ve1eur01on0091.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.1.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96906129469 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 16:14:37 -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=5x3WghK3VnY2BW+HOyBh7as0lTLNF0URSa0geKWMNl8=; b=AEsFNhGGeiAAgrHNWPaQrvExVHtG2S1wgB0xAAxYTWWNSchhdGSfO5XanEMcByEuW60EaYjiZqFnSrm9E2N+4YyTGNA2Y39szLyNYo73aB6W7174V0Tx3h/26StKidDhmOI+s+mTBhI1+TjWTMPgU04Y97rjnnUpjbXPN2ZCI7E= Received: from AM5PR0801MB2035.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.168.158.137) by AM5PR0801MB2036.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.168.158.138) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.919.13; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:14:34 +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 15.01.0919.018; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:14:34 +0000 From: Juan Carlos Zuniga To: Carles Gomez Montenegro Thread-Topic: [lp-wan] Reordering? Thread-Index: AQHSglsME7lHSTnx80+j0AiUgO/qmqFxLqjwgABMkoCAAsDFgA== Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:14:34 +0000 Message-ID: References: <97cbeb62d21c082f6e66845944f55d1f.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu> <88ceb10dc7f84f98f47bf982f60ab872.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu> In-Reply-To: <88ceb10dc7f84f98f47bf982f60ab872.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu> 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: [78.24.33.207] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4833ae1f-a931-4f18-e135-08d45ab7c7e9 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001); SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2036; x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM5PR0801MB2036; 7:4iEUEcogfG9zUK62McP/sZZfEsU5uGxk2bBox/cgwgyXuDh4jjj3O5FJwxn94V21TYEDjIQNhMXNRfQqV/8uXKbtA+e9PVg6Xj+bVdHbrz2ubymamFxFCF7ELi33AT6Eoy+IuVsr3z4x622OBXuC0vlAldoYytg07LpPAkF6M+aaAdWPyt6pqyvnPe7paTej/u7M623AfGXkglyEwWEEBTokG/AOBc5vPbmWQMzDX62k6xgKT8xEJhaovOaJ7Zx9WAgIC0UwPwwoU2u3tDxProhnoK+rRBaS3ewpRh9qYeAtA/r0i+rSF2l8GCaneSgHCZzt122XLCHqKigRDk0tiQ== x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(6041248)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(20161123558025)(20161123560025)(20161123562025)(6072148); SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2036; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2036; x-forefront-prvs: 022649CC2C x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(39450400003)(469094003)(51414003)(199003)(377454003)(53484002)(13464003)(189002)(54356999)(7696004)(86362001)(76176999)(2950100002)(3280700002)(66066001)(2900100001)(5660300001)(92566002)(7736002)(305945005)(68736007)(102836003)(3846002)(4326007)(8936002)(8676002)(74316002)(9686003)(6116002)(2906002)(81166006)(81156014)(6246003)(229853002)(25786008)(99286003)(6916009)(105586002)(106356001)(6506006)(6436002)(2171002)(33656002)(38730400002)(110136004)(106116001)(53936002)(53546006)(50986999)(55016002)(189998001)(101416001)(77096006)(97736004)(122556002)(3660700001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2036; H:AM5PR0801MB2035.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX: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: 22 Feb 2017 00:14:34.4249 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: fcbc8bb1-061e-4b94-9f70-3ad917b0c8d3 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM5PR0801MB2036 Archived-At: Cc: "lp-wan@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lp-wan] Reordering? 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, 22 Feb 2017 00:14:40 -0000 Hello Carles, > -----Original Message----- > From: Carles Gomez Montenegro [mailto:carlesgo@entel.upc.edu] > Sent: February 20, 2017 7:10 AM > To: Juan Carlos Zuniga > Cc: lp-wan@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [lp-wan] Reordering? >=20 > Hello Juan Carlos, >=20 > > Hello Carles, > > > > You are right: due to the star topology and also to the infrequent > > number of messages (compared to other Internet technologies), we do > > not foresee having misordering issues. >=20 > Thanks a lot for this valuable feedback. >=20 > > However, it would be important to make sure that a single fragment > > loss would not cause a full packet retransmission. >=20 > We plan to publish the draft containing both the mechanisms for IP/UDP > header compression and also for fragmentation very soon. >=20 > For the latter, we currently consider at least two main fragment delivery > options: i) one without LPWAN-level reliability (i.e. no LPWAN-level > acknowledgments and no fragment retransmission) and ii) another one with > reliability. >=20 > For reliable fragment delivery, we are defining use of selective > acknowledgments, therefore single-fragment (and most likely combinations > of multiple-fragment) losses will only trigger retransmissions of those > fragments that have been lost. Excellent! This all sounds very encouraging.=20 I look forward to reading the drafts. Best, Juan Carlos=20 >=20 > > I hope this helps. >=20 > It does help! >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > Carles >=20 > > Best, > > > > Juan Carlos From nobody Sun Feb 26 14:15:24 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 7452F1294A0; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 14:15:04 -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 v5MhSP0NIU0T; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 14:14:57 -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 26DF71294A7; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 14:14:57 -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 v1QMElKL028890; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 23:14:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.217.113] (p5DCCCDC2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.204.205.194]) (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 3vWfK33grYzDHRb; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 23:14:47 +0100 (CET) From: Carsten Bormann Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 509840086.855156-08f7fbcefca09b0e23a26350e9f274fe Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\)) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 23:14:46 +0100 Message-Id: <74320B9C-EA99-48E5-9F5F-7BE7982EF945@tzi.org> To: 6lo@ietf.org, 6tisch@ietf.org, lp-wan , lwip@ietf.org, roll@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259) Archived-At: Subject: [lp-wan] Constrained Node/Network Cluster @ IETF98: DRAFT AGENDA 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: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 22:15:04 -0000 Here is my usual eclectic condensed agenda based on the DRAFT AGENDA for IETF98. Remember that there is still quite some potential for changes. ACE/HOMENET/DISPATCH is a bit of a triple whammy. WUGH on LWIG will pull many constrained networks people off the github discussion. I'm not seeing any other major issues, but please do alert the respective chairs when you see one. All times are CDT (UTC-0500) -- yes, the US will be on DST already for a couple of weeks, while Europe moves over right on Mar 26th. (The browser timezone function still is not yet reinstated on https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/agenda-utc, for those who want to listen from remote.) Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten SUNDAY, March 26, 2017 0900-1700 IRTF*** icnrg, with some t2trg-related items on the = agenda MONDAY, March 27, 2017 0900-1130 Morning Session I Zurich A ART dispatch Dispatch WG Zurich D INT homenet Home Networking WG Zurich C SEC *** ace Authentication and Authorization for = Constrained Environments WG 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I Zurich E/F IRTF*** t2trg Thing-to-Thing Zurich A OPS anima Autonomic Networking Integrated Model = and Approach WG Zurich B RTG bier Bit Indexed Explicit Replication WG Zurich G RTG detnet Deterministic Networking WG Vevey 1/2 TSV tsvarea Transport Area Open Meeting 1520-1650 Afternoon Session II Zurich A SEC tokbind Token Binding WG 1710-1810 Afternoon Session III Vevey 1/2 GEN wugh WGs Using GitHub BOF Zurich E/F INT *** lwig Light-Weight Implementation Guidance WG Montreux 3 SEC curdle CURves, Deprecating and a Little more = Encryption WG Zurich C SEC oauth Web Authorization Protocol WG Zurich G TSV tsvwg Transport Area Working Group WG TUESDAY, March 28, 2017 0900-1130 Morning Session I Zurich C INT *** 6tisch IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE = 802.15.4e WG Zurich D IRTF maprg Measurement and Analysis for Protocols Zurich E/F SEC tls Transport Layer Security WG 1300-1430 Afternoon Session I Zurich C ART *** core Constrained RESTful Environments WG Zurich D INT intarea Internet Area Working Group WG Zurich A RTG babel Babel routing protocol WG 1450-1620 Afternoon Session II Zurich G ART uta Using TLS in Applications WG Zurich E/F SEC *** teep A Protocol for Dynamic Trusted Execution = Environment Enablement BOF 1640-1840 Afternoon Session III Zurich C INT dnssd Extensions for Scalable DNS Service = Discovery WG Zurich E/F TSV taps Transport Services WG WEDNESDAY, March 29, 2017 0900-1130 Morning Session I Zurich A INT *** 6lo IPv6 over Networks of = Resource-constrained Nodes WG 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I Zurich A INT *** lpwan IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networks = WG Montreux 3 TSV tcpinc TCP Increased Security WG THURSDAY, March 30, 2017 0900-1130 Morning Session I Zurich D INT 6man IPv6 Maintenance WG Zurich C IRTF icnrg Information-Centric Networking Zurich E/F RTG rtgarea Routing Area Open Meeting Vevey 1/2 TSV quic QUIC WG 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I Zurich B ART *** cbor Concise Binary Object Representation = Maintenance and Extensions WG Zurich G SEC acme Automated Certificate Management = Environment WG Zurich A TSV tsvwg Transport Area Working Group WG 1520-1720 Afternoon Session II Zurich A OPS v6ops IPv6 Operations WG Zurich D SEC saag Security Area Open Meeting 1740-1840 Afternoon Session III Zurich A RTG *** roll Routing Over Low power and Lossy = networks WG FRIDAY, March 31, 2017 0900-1130 Morning Session I Vevey 1/2 ART httpbis Hypertext Transfer Protocol WG Zurich E/F INT ipwave IP Wireless Access in Vehicular = Environments WG Zurich A OPS anima Autonomic Networking Integrated Model = and Approach WG Zurich C SEC oauth Web Authorization Protocol WG 1150-1320 Afternoon Session I Zurich C ART *** core Constrained RESTful Environments WG From nobody Sun Feb 26 14:35:00 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 00D1812941E for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 14:34:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.302 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 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_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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=cs.tcd.ie 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 LWctFu8iay7n for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 14:34:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 230F1127077 for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 14:34:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB89BE49; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 22:34:53 +0000 (GMT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Coc_c_ey1Y1e; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 22:34:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [10.87.48.75] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A47DBE2F; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 22:34:49 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1488148490; bh=abQp2HmrwYId5NyZk6V73zhWf+BQgzXtOYdeVjIHpDk=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=D6WSV8Vb4DIZ/kkGaM+EhSrRwD3iXoYzxGv2apFaNQZKzNyeZWqSqG+NU/ksLSLu/ HCMC3q7HnyxcmcDBC1U5Rei2IJHJJYv60Hc9uYrh++kS3X0n/8h07ugJNiqIiQDZVl pbnBNei/4lJ7xwHLUZtCCtiZhsI1u+FO+Gp4ca7Y= To: Ivan Di Giusto , lp-wan References: <389AB048-B621-48B5-9222-2E00F566C8A3@ackl.io> <9C91D5DE-39AB-4077-AE79-6CFA70451ADC@cisco.com> From: Stephen Farrell Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url= Message-ID: <0171298e-d6e2-920c-d7c1-c2beca46250f@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 22:34:48 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="WsxQSf8pJhnO9dIAUCUWTPfuSvisQVOlL" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lp-wan] Working Group Adoption of draft-farrell-lpwan-overview 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: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 22:34:59 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --WsxQSf8pJhnO9dIAUCUWTPfuSvisQVOlL Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Gdbfjf2hXKHrAfJODE6kogWgddp6xPDkh"; protected-headers="v1" From: Stephen Farrell To: Ivan Di Giusto , lp-wan Message-ID: <0171298e-d6e2-920c-d7c1-c2beca46250f@cs.tcd.ie> Subject: Re: [lp-wan] Working Group Adoption of draft-farrell-lpwan-overview References: <389AB048-B621-48B5-9222-2E00F566C8A3@ackl.io> <9C91D5DE-39AB-4077-AE79-6CFA70451ADC@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: --Gdbfjf2hXKHrAfJODE6kogWgddp6xPDkh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ivan, I'm working towards a -01 of the WG draft as I said a while back, so wanted to respond to your comments on the list as part of that. I've an editor's copy of what'll end up as -01 at [1], plan is to publish that as -01 in the next few days. On 24/11/16 02:30, Ivan Di Giusto wrote: > Hi All, >=20 > This is a well written summary of different LPWA technologies. >=20 > There are a few points that need to be corrected in the LoraWAN section= > before the document is adopted. >=20 > 1. Page 6 para 1 - Discussion about the smallest frame size is not > relevant to a lot of regions and may prejudice readers to a limitati= on that > does not exist in many cases.=20 I still disagree (as I said before) - I do think that this document ought try identify the worst-case MTU with which IP will have to live for each of the relevant technologies. > It would be better to discuss the number of > bytes required for particular types of messages. > CHANGE FROM > Note that in the case ... > TO Sorry, I'm not clear how much text you're suggesting to replace with that below. Your text btw seems correct to me, so I'd not have any particular issue with it being included. Would it be possible to get you to do those changes as PR for the github repo? (If not, let's chat off list to determine how such a PR would look.) Cheers, S. [1] https://github.com/sftcd/lpwan-ov/blob/master/draft-ietf-lpwan-overview.t= xt [2] https://github.com/sftcd/lpwan-ov > Every LoRaWAN DATA packet consists of a Message Type (1 octet), Fram= e > Header (7 octets), Frame Options (optional, from 0 to 15 octets), Fr= ame > Port (1 octet) and a Message Integrity Check (4 octets), along with = a > variable-length data payload. Therefore, to send any number of da= ta > packets, LoRaWAN requires a fixed overhead of 13 octets that are use= d as > packet header/integrity check. Data payload can be up to 242 octets= long. > Local regulations and the choice of data rates may further limit the= > maximum number of data octets. >=20 > Other types of LoRaWAN packets (Join-Request, Join-Response) are of > fixed length (23 octets and 17 octets, respectively) and are usually= used > once in the lifetime of the device, during initial connection to the= > network. >=20 > The Frame Port field (1 octet) is required when data payload is bein= g > transported. Valid values for this octet in the case of data payloa= d are 1 > to 223. >=20 > There is a concept of MAC commands, which are exchanged between the > Network Server and the device. Some are initiated by the device, wh= ile > others are initiated by the Network Server. Their purpose is primar= ily to > manage the network parameters (channel frequencies, receive windows,= duty > cycle rules, etc). Others are used for ADR (Active Data Rate) manag= ement > which allows the Network Server to instruct the device to use a > higher/lower data rate/transmission power. >=20 > MAC commands can be transferred in two different ways. Firstly, the= y > can be placed inside Frame Options, which can carry up to 15 octets.= In > this configuration, MAC commands are not encrypted, but are authenti= cated, > prevent spoofing attempts. Secondly, MAC commands can be carried as= data > packet with Frame Port setting of 0. In this configuration, MAC com= mands > are encrypted using the network session key (NwkSKey). >=20 > 2. Page 6 > DELETE para 2 as it is incorrect (JOIN procedure does not use ports)= > DELETE para 3-5 as this information is explained in the above text >=20 > 3. Page 7 para 4 starting with > End-devices are assumed to work ... > SHOULD have the sentence > This is achievable in many cases ... > CHANGED TO > This is called Activation By Personalization (ABP) and programmed in= to > the device. The network server is provided the relevant keys by > out-of-band means. >=20 > 4. Page 8 para 1 that starts with > As an alternative, end-devices can use the ... > SHOULD change to > As an alternative to ABP activation, end-devices can use > Over-The-Air-Activation (OTAA) join procedure in order to setup some= of > these values and dynamically gain access to the network. To use the = OTAA > join procedure, an end-device must still know the AppEUI, and in add= ition, > a different (long-term) symmetric key that is bound to the AppEUI - = this is > the application key (AppKey), and is distinct from the application s= ession > key (AppSKey). The AppKey is required to be specific to the device,= that > is, each end-device should have a different AppKey value. And final= ly the > end-device also needs a long-term identifier for itself, syntactical= ly also > an EUI-64, and known as the device EUI or DevEUI. >=20 > Feel free to provide feedback on the recommended changes. >=20 > Regards, > Ivan Di Giusto >=20 > On 24 November 2016 at 02:15, Patrick Wetterwald (pwetterw) < > pwetterw@cisco.com> wrote: >=20 >> Yes for adoption. >> >> >> >> Patrick >> >> >> >> *From: *lp-wan on behalf of Alexander Pelov = < >> a@ackl.io> >> *Date: *Wednesday, 16 November 2016 at 23:55 >> *To: *lp-wan >> *Subject: *[lp-wan] Working Group Adoption of draft-farrell-lpwan-over= view >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> (This is the call for adoption for the *LPWAN overview* document.) >> >> >> During the Monday meeting of the WG, we=E2=80=99ve discussed three mai= n drafts, >> which address the two items we have in our charter. We=E2=80=99ve had = three call >> for adoption in the room, with clear support for the adoption of the >> documents. You can find the minutes at the following address: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-97-lpwan/ >> >> We are now moving the call for adoption to the mailing list and will b= e >> closing the call in two weeks (on *December 2nd, 2016*). >> >> This is the call for adoption for "LPWAN Overview" draft >> (draft-farrell-lpwan-overview): >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc//draft-farrell-lpwan-overview/ >> >> >> Please read the draft and reply to the list with your comments, remark= s, >> suggestions and votes on the adoption of this document. >> >> Best, >> Pascal and Alexander >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lp-wan mailing list >> lp-wan@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan >> >> >=20 --Gdbfjf2hXKHrAfJODE6kogWgddp6xPDkh-- --WsxQSf8pJhnO9dIAUCUWTPfuSvisQVOlL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJYs1gIAAoJEC88hzaAX42i6hIIAKwPa+IqQj44wAdL/Z6eRpLj GtCMxmaW9gZD0AKc0PU9w7r/iBkcQv3iQl7yf7LRH2SZX7JMCDewnXTByQ7RYVtp 6BES9qRsgFAddCiiBbX0kN2/ciSnhMZcAKMOy5jUXlLA16HzXB4/8Ldaacnty8mN IwQm30oyfBqQtynW3X7Zj0P4d0/6qQhQwFPFGbq06I0FAnIJ5ajUkR0dXhHkGxCk 2YPhXLZ5yHbE5fgDlhJdrEYdaf18l6v97FUBQ+FeAh+C+akANzKQkMkDhSfwakRp U4E05dd/2k4+GUr/gk44xeMev3DCM8Dde2wxSD9qHXle+8ZBWoaVGwkGk1et7pE= =ud9d -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --WsxQSf8pJhnO9dIAUCUWTPfuSvisQVOlL-- From nobody Sun Feb 26 14:35:07 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 95C2212941E for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 14:35:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.302 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 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_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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=cs.tcd.ie 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 Dji1tzz8s2MZ for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 14:34:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 211CF127077 for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 14:34:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5D09BE49; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 22:34:57 +0000 (GMT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9BA3SjIQj-Dh; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 22:34:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [10.87.48.75] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D9BF1BE2F; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 22:34:55 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1488148496; bh=HaZD4oyz15Jj8FBO+onDrsyiv4OoVQH5O8WpUSj/sUE=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=gWv7Ehmz1P3TkIjZkbkoT1KZdlyKzncwf9deOjZ4O1W2xl3qTTGhkl2LmuP8uMsbA 3cRpNvwVeTNi3wYS6t5hUb+62xgC3TQyR75qmkS8OiEK4oZ2vUg3ENDwiJwItKLKCH rY1aReBqq+mpxSdxo9WG492O3yyqB39Vno0GTzQk= To: weigengyu , lp-wan@ietf.org References: <389AB048-B621-48B5-9222-2E00F566C8A3@ackl.io> <131C0A51-FAC7-4799-A018-E19DC31D449C@jiaziyi.com> <4064F0C57B1644729DB3A4D2F816CAF1@WeiGengyuPC> From: Stephen Farrell Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url= Message-ID: Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 22:34:55 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4064F0C57B1644729DB3A4D2F816CAF1@WeiGengyuPC> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2Ad5B6bq9pdt0HBbSxLqrXe8lHs951EvO" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lp-wan] Working Group Adoption of draft-farrell-lpwan-overview 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: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 22:35:00 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --2Ad5B6bq9pdt0HBbSxLqrXe8lHs951EvO Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="X2EHThiDISGmr1ra4bHaBE9dv67i3U3Lx"; protected-headers="v1" From: Stephen Farrell To: weigengyu , lp-wan@ietf.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lp-wan] Working Group Adoption of draft-farrell-lpwan-overview References: <389AB048-B621-48B5-9222-2E00F566C8A3@ackl.io> <131C0A51-FAC7-4799-A018-E19DC31D449C@jiaziyi.com> <4064F0C57B1644729DB3A4D2F816CAF1@WeiGengyuPC> In-Reply-To: <4064F0C57B1644729DB3A4D2F816CAF1@WeiGengyuPC> --X2EHThiDISGmr1ra4bHaBE9dv67i3U3Lx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hiya, I'm working towards a -01 of the WG draft as I said a while back, so wanted to respond to your comments on the list as part of that. I've an editor's copy of what'll end up as -01 at [1], plan is to publish that as -01 in the next few days. Cheers, S. [1] https://github.com/sftcd/lpwan-ov/blob/master/draft-ietf-lpwan-overview.t= xt On 26/11/16 16:48, weigengyu wrote: > Hi, >=20 > +1 for adotion. >=20 > And there are some questions. >=20 > In Introduction, =E2=80=9CThe goal of the LPWAN WG is to adapt IETF def= ined > protocols, addressing schemes and naming to this particular > constrained environment. =E2=80=9D It is assumed that =E2=80=9Caddressi= ng schemes =E2=80=9C > means IPv6 and =E2=80=9Cnaming=E2=80=9D is domain name as specified in = =E2=80=9C4.9. DNS and > LPWAN=E2=80=9D, isn=E2=80=99t it? Sort-of. For my proto-01, I've added a "where necessary" to sentence. Not sure if that helps that much though, but see below. I agree that there's work needed on section 4.9 - feel free to propose text and I'll think about it myself too. >=20 > By the statement, each LPWAN node is assigned with an IPv6 address > and a domain name.=20 No, I don't believe there's any intent that every LPWAN node have a domain name. > But, according to typical networks communications > are always beween one LPWAN node and an application server. That is > to say that communications are not beween LPWAN nodes directly. In > such a situation, DNS name resolution seems not be needed for the > LPWAN node. Right or not? Not quite. I personally think that communication between LPWAN nodes (indirectly via IP) is something to not preclude even if it is not needed for many use-cases. I don't think there is a goal to enable direct communication between LPWAN nodes via IP, though of course some lower layer technology might I guess allow that. I also suspect that DNS name resolution would be more likely to be required as part of e.g. a s/w update scheme and direct node to node communications is a less likely motivator. >=20 > While relating to =E2=80=9C4.9. DNS and LPWAN=E2=80=9D, one problem is = whether a > LPWAN node requires to start a name resolution.=20 My guess is that this WG will want to consider whether it is possible for an LPWAN node to use the DNS to resolve addresses. But I'd not be surprised if there were lots of varied opinions on that topic. > And another problem > is whether the LPWAN node requires to process Domain Name in WEB > protocol options or contents? I'm not sure quite what you mean, but it sounds more like something that the core WG would consider, rather than this one. Cheers, S. >=20 >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Gengyu WEI Network Technology Center School of Computer Beijing > University of Posts and Telecommunications >=20 > From: Jiazi Yi Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016 4:42 PM To: Alexander > Pelov Cc: lp-wan Subject: Re: [lp-wan] Working Group Adoption of > draft-farrell-lpwan-overview >=20 > Hi, >=20 > I believe it=E2=80=99s a very helpful document and I=E2=80=99m in favou= r of the WG > adoption. >=20 > cheers >=20 > Jiazi >=20 > On 16 Nov 2016, at 23:55, Alexander Pelov wrote: >=20 > Dear all, >=20 > (This is the call for adoption for the *LPWAN overview* document.) >=20 > During the Monday meeting of the WG, we=E2=80=99ve discussed three main= > drafts, which address the two items we have in our charter. We=E2=80=99= ve had > three call for adoption in the room, with clear support for the > adoption of the documents. You can find the minutes at the following > address: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-97-lpwan/ >=20 > We are now moving the call for adoption to the mailing list and will > be closing the call in two weeks (on December 2nd, 2016). >=20 > This is the call for adoption for "LPWAN Overview" draft > (draft-farrell-lpwan-overview):=20 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc//draft-farrell-lpwan-overview/ >=20 > Please read the draft and reply to the list with your comments, > remarks, suggestions and votes on the adoption of this document. >=20 > Best, Pascal and Alexander >=20 > _______________________________________________ lp-wan mailing list=20 > lp-wan@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------- > >=20 _______________________________________________ > lp-wan mailing list lp-wan@ietf.org=20 > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ lp-wan mailing list=20 > lp-wan@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan >=20 --X2EHThiDISGmr1ra4bHaBE9dv67i3U3Lx-- --2Ad5B6bq9pdt0HBbSxLqrXe8lHs951EvO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJYs1gPAAoJEC88hzaAX42iteIH/1kADNnh1lTbt5oTyyuWGoEh 7EAdv787v1QaANRbW+oR67eFY/LPKr879j02vsUtSQU7tZyt4fvBcCMLN1Ww1Kwq AUTp1AXaKcvgoKaNRlFCjvmy0aKHbAMx3q/SeQAM/MZ/It9zSja/72XXzuw9MpRX /7NWEoGofeD5JZ9nPlXUrMW9oMWq75OGjZcAcgV60jeIQDgf5j600qiboqF89GgB NJpYLjaVWw5HHCrixxE5G2Irgo7ZNeuuWQZpt6Zck1CoVUhQ1h6Nfeae4swlY//m VLij3opDLwz5Ha52VudccTcuFcOUcof4z4oa3GHEFP6jXPgMJN3OmnhePl/lqtE= =ES6m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2Ad5B6bq9pdt0HBbSxLqrXe8lHs951EvO-- From nobody Mon Feb 27 01:06:21 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 57806129C63 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 01:06:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.301 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie 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 yMuGiqXxgD_P for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 01:06:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46ABE129428 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 01:06:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF743BE56; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:06:15 +0000 (GMT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KU0Lq5_zuPa4; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:06:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [10.87.48.75] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E724BE49; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:06:11 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1488186372; bh=VQahgk7JzsqwDkBHQpX2UMwMEqnegpki1TNMkvdg+h4=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=lybGGmTx1/IHB7P1QBHtyT8ud6Z1JunX14pzsW0FdTtxeY5J/wUdCw3NmIwkEbw1n 9juuXhGXsULcHK7ehUCddvmmmACX3VE2RN9IWsS5r7igJkpKatlLplFpu6Qg/05qPr ruNwYtNEuiUVBvy+s1nRrE1d7VEn9z/mpZ3P6kew= To: lp-wan References: <389AB048-B621-48B5-9222-2E00F566C8A3@ackl.io> <9C91D5DE-39AB-4077-AE79-6CFA70451ADC@cisco.com> <0171298e-d6e2-920c-d7c1-c2beca46250f@cs.tcd.ie> From: Stephen Farrell Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url= Message-ID: <956043af-876f-78be-9eba-b1e0f696b381@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:06:10 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0171298e-d6e2-920c-d7c1-c2beca46250f@cs.tcd.ie> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tCxbP3tjgHCxUbAgPwqNAnSAimcnAlQ2q" Archived-At: Cc: Ivan Di Giusto Subject: Re: [lp-wan] Working Group Adoption of draft-farrell-lpwan-overview 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: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:06:20 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --tCxbP3tjgHCxUbAgPwqNAnSAimcnAlQ2q Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8XXPaQJSwxTA7UCSGWinmJe2aHgbH8Sv2"; protected-headers="v1" From: Stephen Farrell To: lp-wan Cc: Ivan Di Giusto Message-ID: <956043af-876f-78be-9eba-b1e0f696b381@cs.tcd.ie> Subject: Re: [lp-wan] Working Group Adoption of draft-farrell-lpwan-overview References: <389AB048-B621-48B5-9222-2E00F566C8A3@ackl.io> <9C91D5DE-39AB-4077-AE79-6CFA70451ADC@cisco.com> <0171298e-d6e2-920c-d7c1-c2beca46250f@cs.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: <0171298e-d6e2-920c-d7c1-c2beca46250f@cs.tcd.ie> --8XXPaQJSwxTA7UCSGWinmJe2aHgbH8Sv2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable And Ivan did indeed submit a PR [1] (thanks!) that I'll look at this morning. At first glance those do seem like fine changes and essentially editorial so that being the case I won't wait for a positive ack from the WG chairs to accept if that's ok. I will send mail here though if (or when:-) I do accept the PR. Cheers, S. [1] https://github.com/sftcd/lpwan-ov/pull/1 On 26/02/17 22:34, Stephen Farrell wrote: >=20 > Hi Ivan, >=20 > I'm working towards a -01 of the WG draft as I said a while > back, so wanted to respond to your comments on the list as > part of that. >=20 > I've an editor's copy of what'll end up as -01 at [1], plan > is to publish that as -01 in the next few days. >=20 >=20 > On 24/11/16 02:30, Ivan Di Giusto wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> This is a well written summary of different LPWA technologies. >> >> There are a few points that need to be corrected in the LoraWAN sectio= n >> before the document is adopted. >> >> 1. Page 6 para 1 - Discussion about the smallest frame size is not >> relevant to a lot of regions and may prejudice readers to a limitat= ion that >> does not exist in many cases.=20 >=20 > I still disagree (as I said before) - I do think that this document > ought try identify the worst-case MTU with which IP will have to > live for each of the relevant technologies. >=20 >> It would be better to discuss the number of >> bytes required for particular types of messages. >> CHANGE FROM >> Note that in the case ... >> TO >=20 > Sorry, I'm not clear how much text you're suggesting to replace > with that below. Your text btw seems correct to me, so I'd not > have any particular issue with it being included. >=20 > Would it be possible to get you to do those changes as PR for > the github repo? (If not, let's chat off list to determine > how such a PR would look.) >=20 > Cheers, > S. >=20 > [1] > https://github.com/sftcd/lpwan-ov/blob/master/draft-ietf-lpwan-overview= =2Etxt > [2] https://github.com/sftcd/lpwan-ov >=20 >=20 >> Every LoRaWAN DATA packet consists of a Message Type (1 octet), Fra= me >> Header (7 octets), Frame Options (optional, from 0 to 15 octets), F= rame >> Port (1 octet) and a Message Integrity Check (4 octets), along with= a >> variable-length data payload. Therefore, to send any number of d= ata >> packets, LoRaWAN requires a fixed overhead of 13 octets that are us= ed as >> packet header/integrity check. Data payload can be up to 242 octet= s long. >> Local regulations and the choice of data rates may further limit th= e >> maximum number of data octets. >> >> Other types of LoRaWAN packets (Join-Request, Join-Response) are of= >> fixed length (23 octets and 17 octets, respectively) and are usuall= y used >> once in the lifetime of the device, during initial connection to th= e >> network. >> >> The Frame Port field (1 octet) is required when data payload is bei= ng >> transported. Valid values for this octet in the case of data paylo= ad are 1 >> to 223. >> >> There is a concept of MAC commands, which are exchanged between the= >> Network Server and the device. Some are initiated by the device, w= hile >> others are initiated by the Network Server. Their purpose is prima= rily to >> manage the network parameters (channel frequencies, receive windows= , duty >> cycle rules, etc). Others are used for ADR (Active Data Rate) mana= gement >> which allows the Network Server to instruct the device to use a >> higher/lower data rate/transmission power. >> >> MAC commands can be transferred in two different ways. Firstly, th= ey >> can be placed inside Frame Options, which can carry up to 15 octets= =2E In >> this configuration, MAC commands are not encrypted, but are authent= icated, >> prevent spoofing attempts. Secondly, MAC commands can be carried a= s data >> packet with Frame Port setting of 0. In this configuration, MAC co= mmands >> are encrypted using the network session key (NwkSKey). >> >> 2. Page 6 >> DELETE para 2 as it is incorrect (JOIN procedure does not use ports= ) >> DELETE para 3-5 as this information is explained in the above text >> >> 3. Page 7 para 4 starting with >> End-devices are assumed to work ... >> SHOULD have the sentence >> This is achievable in many cases ... >> CHANGED TO >> This is called Activation By Personalization (ABP) and programmed i= nto >> the device. The network server is provided the relevant keys by >> out-of-band means. >> >> 4. Page 8 para 1 that starts with >> As an alternative, end-devices can use the ... >> SHOULD change to >> As an alternative to ABP activation, end-devices can use >> Over-The-Air-Activation (OTAA) join procedure in order to setup som= e of >> these values and dynamically gain access to the network. To use the= OTAA >> join procedure, an end-device must still know the AppEUI, and in ad= dition, >> a different (long-term) symmetric key that is bound to the AppEUI -= this is >> the application key (AppKey), and is distinct from the application = session >> key (AppSKey). The AppKey is required to be specific to the device= , that >> is, each end-device should have a different AppKey value. And fina= lly the >> end-device also needs a long-term identifier for itself, syntactica= lly also >> an EUI-64, and known as the device EUI or DevEUI. >> >> Feel free to provide feedback on the recommended changes. >> >> Regards, >> Ivan Di Giusto >> >> On 24 November 2016 at 02:15, Patrick Wetterwald (pwetterw) < >> pwetterw@cisco.com> wrote: >> >>> Yes for adoption. >>> >>> >>> >>> Patrick >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *lp-wan on behalf of Alexander Pelov= < >>> a@ackl.io> >>> *Date: *Wednesday, 16 November 2016 at 23:55 >>> *To: *lp-wan >>> *Subject: *[lp-wan] Working Group Adoption of draft-farrell-lpwan-ove= rview >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> (This is the call for adoption for the *LPWAN overview* document.) >>> >>> >>> During the Monday meeting of the WG, we=E2=80=99ve discussed three ma= in drafts, >>> which address the two items we have in our charter. We=E2=80=99ve had= three call >>> for adoption in the room, with clear support for the adoption of the >>> documents. You can find the minutes at the following address: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-97-lpwan/ >>> >>> We are now moving the call for adoption to the mailing list and will = be >>> closing the call in two weeks (on *December 2nd, 2016*). >>> >>> This is the call for adoption for "LPWAN Overview" draft >>> (draft-farrell-lpwan-overview): >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc//draft-farrell-lpwan-overview/ >>> >>> >>> Please read the draft and reply to the list with your comments, remar= ks, >>> suggestions and votes on the adoption of this document. >>> >>> Best, >>> Pascal and Alexander >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lp-wan mailing list >>> lp-wan@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan >>> >>> >> >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lp-wan mailing list > lp-wan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan >=20 --8XXPaQJSwxTA7UCSGWinmJe2aHgbH8Sv2-- --tCxbP3tjgHCxUbAgPwqNAnSAimcnAlQ2q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJYs+wCAAoJEC88hzaAX42iFOAH/2FH3bPkJrrbS7BDLkrBKjXc wmmSI+eN9gF9KYwLX6dVTad2La3DQojW3xWuhZo4SAD0WhouLmGc1TCLY7RHXUNS gu9ejl4Gjz4rk0ObU+k6QUa9ozjE/sF4RBB/Dsm9MgkLHWHbak7i6TLvzcTUr2uJ io4NqTQwZm4dp4ulHKs0w82nUFJ4VxWSenHdzkLKC9sgjZt1BOukZDGUlGZRuO0C YDS8b9x3ZJYii9B18LB3rsdyMebwXHAgfc5/M/gZykyE3ggjqS6eO6hHoXQMrJkC xjQOVZ5gNkzudapmEP4aqDROntTQPBq6EUJd5U1+HTAHBTiV//RtfqVOGrTHJy8= =Fpju -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tCxbP3tjgHCxUbAgPwqNAnSAimcnAlQ2q-- From nobody Mon Feb 27 09:08:17 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 BA818129986; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:08:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.46.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148821529575.21157.13639381417930333583.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:08:15 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: lp-wan@ietf.org Subject: [lp-wan] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-01.txt 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: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:08:16 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networks of the IETF. Title : LPWAN Overview Author : Stephen Farrell Filename : draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-01.txt Pages : 37 Date : 2017-02-27 Abstract: Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) are wireless technologies with characteristics such as large coverage areas, low bandwidth, possibly very small packet and application layer data sizes and long battery life operation. This memo is an informational overview of the set of LPWAN technologies being considered in the IETF and of the gaps that exist between the needs of those technologies and the goal of running IP in LPWANs. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lpwan-overview/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-01 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-drafts/ From nobody Mon Feb 27 09:11:08 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 56A1412A24B for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:11:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.728 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.728 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 lbZhWeJnkuBB for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:11:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wr0-x241.google.com (mail-wr0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2EAD12A23A for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:11:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr0-x241.google.com with SMTP id l37so2283496wrc.3 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:11:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:cc; bh=FTs4gcdj5E7CGcEZhwNYOZgS0glebJ/b/sUflYvA+w8=; b=qynALUq6E0hOE1IN7BC9PE8MXjD4lAF90jJJdguQHBrK99b8D0kSiV0KEEDysChQRe cOGz9JYC9ZU/Gtjl8UPRk9YmEMqMbLbIy7sLU4bAZx0Aht+rCSUR8T3Tin69eVluy2Uh or7iL2JqXlwNyK6ikaXcrMGTAx667Cftqdk+PKFj9oOH7AbJRsb2yAvo4n9QyR3rdd7z IJWV7UmkEU39T/uDmLobqEDagQuuZXA+xoOSRIGHsPSN8vkUO9pDjDYkOFv9k+zyXXLO XYgOeTDG6k2W259jkcWzGYkbj4oxAJs2K3kHg/5HlCmDbn4cb+a7iBBdXjUSzcJuuI9f 0rcQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:cc; bh=FTs4gcdj5E7CGcEZhwNYOZgS0glebJ/b/sUflYvA+w8=; b=bYF1fFpTS2fDexKrBHpLxMqKt+rJKKskX7+Kc1RofYqFryzeHXiDz8lSACG3nckltw RPN7AqNIQV0ay1demBmQdQS0hpX9QUbE9G0WSmae8nsRe/G+tdQSzEb2EI+0KUz5Pvck 9SZAigNsUEEc0fyuVcwawGJXB7rbBPXzbbBvrp0B8ARPiSAL1R6SZEm5sWCBvCG0wCiW dRVYfhCGYrEOMuZTdnVs/OL5qeldCMhOoA4ZXygks80q+g1qwlkRmcsccC4QIspfrlt8 7vUzzQMf7LXgeUb2R33Bffz9h2eMkATERDU563v8M2tMhhgRpzBAfdfihc1XUKZDLwWt aAfQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nAW2x0LazRhscZvnMRp/JwBWgp4ebDt9H5+S+oZ0ipHzbTR+vBFl3MS+ET/dtahRsak0lx9fdGGWuRWA== X-Received: by 10.223.144.36 with SMTP id h33mr15543452wrh.26.1488215462083; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:11:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.136.170 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:11:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <148821529575.21157.13639381417930333583.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <148821529575.21157.13639381417930333583.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Behcet Sarikaya Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:11:01 -0600 Message-ID: Cc: lp-wan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lp-wan] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-01.txt X-BeenThere: lp-wan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org 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: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:11:06 -0000 Folks, This should be Revision 00 not 01. Regards, Behcet On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:08 AM, wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networks of the IETF. > > Title : LPWAN Overview > Author : Stephen Farrell > Filename : draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-01.txt > Pages : 37 > Date : 2017-02-27 > > Abstract: > Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) are wireless technologies with > characteristics such as large coverage areas, low bandwidth, possibly > very small packet and application layer data sizes and long battery > life operation. This memo is an informational overview of the set of > LPWAN technologies being considered in the IETF and of the gaps that > exist between the needs of those technologies and the goal of running > IP in LPWANs. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lpwan-overview/ > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-01 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-01 > > > 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-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > lp-wan mailing list > lp-wan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan From nobody Mon Feb 27 09:12:52 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 9DED512A24A for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:12:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 uMtCZWLruiNa for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:12:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wr0-x230.google.com (mail-wr0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BD1812A23A for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:12:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr0-x230.google.com with SMTP id u48so7041218wrc.0 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:12:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=Y5iP70wOzUVQBfTt/i+JNj+Pkem2LTH4U2sRReZ3KwQ=; b=a/iCukVTtBwUTLkNwoNPyRHxl4spZOd/ctNfRFlOphPGiLAafz/kPV1WrAjemt2I8m EsCS2w3+2e+NZrUPGHoXl4ga7QZEu67GrAjiRal93aIMW5NeSGaGzOWoLBjSTdQrCTrT rzDHlThOcVjGGjBNwAIOZ2R0FpnxhpP0ZVli+DwQtnXTWwLhz8juU5WoAkSIAV7x83Ay LF9lmpfrD4MQpDYyyTtJLLQdW68vPPePQCtwFVZmaaAc3NpinmckRq28PJfXquOVPfX1 Y1ifEOhmG5b8ixq7ap2oaJPttYN1e2uas5VnDiJDHpXmuuWVWbgAMEFjBUlC+1xTP44S XsUQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Y5iP70wOzUVQBfTt/i+JNj+Pkem2LTH4U2sRReZ3KwQ=; b=tQR6XpXs93iATe//pF1NcqLwveEA22n6bQpIrUml2GRLUsJ73iIlNsl5n+pKLAeNf/ 6b7Smr0eBYaV9RuTTDcJZn/QIdzsBVHL61PmBbFw/qXAtxWC0Nx+7F+gqYbWGisKqO06 cZAZ7GZZkjiubmUJhh4xPxWYCuLnZiOV8UNrQvbBXBXdteoigigpzzrzmguxTgdBMKnK bWH5FaG+IRDHKNa5QVaQW789TaghoTSK/4OmR95JpZyPqZsTjSIfBqFhVBQgOIWp8Gh7 iX5HIAgzjZSOQTK6Uhsb+MKBt2y6Krq4kX8D+rmPzxEpWQvFhN9Yqcp5NWi3ZLzjn2Ah XiKw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39k8MEaU1cuvLOOeoRBhAbHZJgRjBJR4HRgR75rHE7t9psvL1SKI+uhrjNnm357v3g4kQIAbi8quUcP5ig== X-Received: by 10.223.162.205 with SMTP id t13mr16985229wra.155.1488215567790; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:12:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.136.170 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:12:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <148821529575.21157.13639381417930333583.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Behcet Sarikaya Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:12:47 -0600 Message-ID: To: "sarikaya@ieee.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: lp-wan Subject: Re: [lp-wan] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-01.txt X-BeenThere: lp-wan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org 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: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:12:50 -0000 My technical comment is no bootstrapping overview has been included in the document. Why? Regards, behcet On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Folks, > > This should be Revision 00 not 01. > > Regards, > > Behcet > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:08 AM, wrote: >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. >> This draft is a work item of the IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networks of the IETF. >> >> Title : LPWAN Overview >> Author : Stephen Farrell >> Filename : draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-01.txt >> Pages : 37 >> Date : 2017-02-27 >> >> Abstract: >> Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) are wireless technologies with >> characteristics such as large coverage areas, low bandwidth, possibly >> very small packet and application layer data sizes and long battery >> life operation. This memo is an informational overview of the set of >> LPWAN technologies being considered in the IETF and of the gaps that >> exist between the needs of those technologies and the goal of running >> IP in LPWANs. >> >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lpwan-overview/ >> >> There's also a htmlized version available at: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-01 >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-01 >> >> >> 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-drafts/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lp-wan mailing list >> lp-wan@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan From nobody Mon Feb 27 09:15:18 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 36D8012A24E for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:15:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.301 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie 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 Gnr3HM-0aTK6 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:15:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4367129971 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:15:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1203BE74 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:15:12 +0000 (GMT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id km4D-qaCxPL2 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:15:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [10.87.48.210] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C302BE83 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:15:10 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1488215710; bh=srw/MQA6dCt5RB8R0CB0x0BiB80SH9gnqvL1sdbgryo=; h=Subject:References:To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=je0yYTGQy+igbD+lp2Mr1guvMPVLsRm5ve6yLMH3f/NNaQKjmOgBCYueD+BcIq3L+ 0QaggsHUabHUkmLhF4x0zcUwZVDNB3m0lWq52De+a3sVupbkPuxaJF48tZ1SW8UopI Mt+JeDqFuK5/htxbVxe0UzDJpY8Y4WPgvqbGS1Tk= References: <148821529575.21157.13639381417930333583.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: lp-wan@ietf.org From: Stephen Farrell Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url= Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:15:09 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <148821529575.21157.13639381417930333583.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="c5eJMprsd6h7OeCxkUQujJbT9frAFVULG" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lp-wan] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-01.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: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:15:17 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --c5eJMprsd6h7OeCxkUQujJbT9frAFVULG Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="6DXUFOtMkQNIinNBLEXBVpOolNRhn72hB"; protected-headers="v1" From: Stephen Farrell To: lp-wan@ietf.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lp-wan] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-01.txt References: <148821529575.21157.13639381417930333583.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <148821529575.21157.13639381417930333583.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> --6DXUFOtMkQNIinNBLEXBVpOolNRhn72hB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, As you'll see this version is supposed to contain obvious changes from -00 and those where folks have provided input. (Thanks Ivan and Ana.) Please check out the diff and let me know how/if I've messed up. I'll try to chase some folks for bits where I need help (Hi there NB-IoT and Wi-SUN folks:-) shortly. In the meantime PR's for the git repo [1] that has the proto-02 version are welcome as always. If one of those has substantive changes please cc the list so everyone gets a chance to see what's what. Cheers, S. [1] https://github.com/sftcd/lpwan-ov On 27/02/17 17:08, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts dire= ctories. > This draft is a work item of the IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networks= of the IETF. >=20 > Title : LPWAN Overview > Author : Stephen Farrell > Filename : draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-01.txt > Pages : 37 > Date : 2017-02-27 >=20 > Abstract: > Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) are wireless technologies with > characteristics such as large coverage areas, low bandwidth, possibl= y > very small packet and application layer data sizes and long battery > life operation. This memo is an informational overview of the set o= f > LPWAN technologies being considered in the IETF and of the gaps that= > exist between the needs of those technologies and the goal of runnin= g > IP in LPWANs. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lpwan-overview/ >=20 > There's also a htmlized version available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-01 >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-lpwan-overview-01 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submi= ssion > 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 > _______________________________________________ > lp-wan mailing list > lp-wan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan >=20 --6DXUFOtMkQNIinNBLEXBVpOolNRhn72hB-- --c5eJMprsd6h7OeCxkUQujJbT9frAFVULG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJYtF6dAAoJEC88hzaAX42iZIAH/3VErebK/WwxfL/zGSayy/pJ h/Q6RD8Z/3lZrikXBAATFVK+TDr65LJ6E0Y3nrMfE1jo0hKxUY6WTf5ne6FgaBec 0CW0Z6jH132RzurNmSiY/0ecrd+yLyCjvewlGS8PPaDOFRjENsFOQpQSFb0HY9vx kfAyMJ08pu0ZCtHFlmILFGLzpoSsnU1guiT/KoTJtHkMhvFDyvaMWFSJL4TvDQ8v EtIsHL+5AxZblK+aRME9u6d+htibQsefwaOLTSImwAUFEL23ttS0lwy5vidO6s8r stzS/XJcs4L8cSavtP9SBOxHU3FbBECk8O5gYMrN8zxZTeY9meEgmyfdKvvhLGA= =Gd9h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --c5eJMprsd6h7OeCxkUQujJbT9frAFVULG-- From nobody Mon Feb 27 09:25:58 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 5B20012A286 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:25:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.301 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie 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 W7eqWf_nM8iz for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:25:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E124912A281 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:25:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BF78BE2F; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:18:29 +0000 (GMT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AzxqTn5oPOOU; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:18:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [10.87.48.210] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 04F99BE5F; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:18:26 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1488215907; bh=D9N8uQEyJ20+xXuRPnK0je+rBhaPm/VQMEOfeKX73gE=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=F1fZELu/oryUCmcro0238IOxg4whZccpFTYvprHM7wXXUnc7PMMF6X8785bFOvWyQ NdlUV0j7Qw2KUk25pEaAkz4ATXr+gPrLB9O2geUCd87S25hhb+CS/69wSZoGiZgeJL JVwBMBprkibevYGcexPYp81lgXbgrqwRc2Luz4X0= To: sarikaya@ieee.org References: <148821529575.21157.13639381417930333583.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Stephen Farrell Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url= Message-ID: <92bfc667-93af-d94c-3284-53be506b2d0f@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:18:26 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="L0V6JIe2uvKxEBmfXC5a6tdPuaVErcels" Archived-At: Cc: lp-wan Subject: Re: [lp-wan] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-01.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: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:25:54 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --L0V6JIe2uvKxEBmfXC5a6tdPuaVErcels Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="M3sTeiaM8fNamML5iECRTKfP1qjG4Ffg4"; protected-headers="v1" From: Stephen Farrell To: sarikaya@ieee.org Cc: lp-wan Message-ID: <92bfc667-93af-d94c-3284-53be506b2d0f@cs.tcd.ie> Subject: Re: [lp-wan] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-01.txt References: <148821529575.21157.13639381417930333583.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: --M3sTeiaM8fNamML5iECRTKfP1qjG4Ffg4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 27/02/17 17:12, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > My technical comment is > no bootstrapping overview has been included in the document. Why? Nobody offered text. :-) If you'd like to do so, please feel free to propose something on the list. Thanks, S >=20 > Regards, >=20 > behcet >=20 > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Behcet Sarikaya > wrote: >> Folks, >> >> This should be Revision 00 not 01. >> >> Regards, >> >> Behcet >> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:08 AM, wrote: >>> >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts di= rectories. >>> This draft is a work item of the IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networ= ks of the IETF. >>> >>> Title : LPWAN Overview >>> Author : Stephen Farrell >>> Filename : draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-01.txt >>> Pages : 37 >>> Date : 2017-02-27 >>> >>> Abstract: >>> Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) are wireless technologies wit= h >>> characteristics such as large coverage areas, low bandwidth, possi= bly >>> very small packet and application layer data sizes and long batter= y >>> life operation. This memo is an informational overview of the set= of >>> LPWAN technologies being considered in the IETF and of the gaps th= at >>> exist between the needs of those technologies and the goal of runn= ing >>> IP in LPWANs. >>> >>> >>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lpwan-overview/ >>> >>> There's also a htmlized version available at: >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-01 >>> >>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-lpwan-overview-01 >>> >>> >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of sub= mission >>> 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/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lp-wan mailing list >>> lp-wan@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lp-wan mailing list > lp-wan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan >=20 --M3sTeiaM8fNamML5iECRTKfP1qjG4Ffg4-- --L0V6JIe2uvKxEBmfXC5a6tdPuaVErcels Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJYtF9iAAoJEC88hzaAX42iiAUH/Rsn+zc+XgmvZKG7QZtQV2KA 5nxPuzzdH8Huzed8T+U5d9k4bU6hSTPbCarV8C+qFQwLefXnLPM30aMdi4MlTFWE /ozXiuuSHerkmUNy+bNoT9txk4QOyBj89BY24kdkOPvl/6lnzNVeIsEMbzM84cVq 1YqQzS70rOTgXpohnAWP+E+f15wpDUm+ivQPu/WKSdZ81Tok2QJflmbCXDhnd6/5 5TddnIt+kM0S+Dr+IOn5OscRjikpaRbKcA6bulrA6UgK4A3eXoq59qg402mSOEo3 Rxjr00dBawu9JAS2NlUokey8A0pHNKqHvS6ZTpZ6skGlbb/7+WhoucQO+tHNpsQ= =sQVn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --L0V6JIe2uvKxEBmfXC5a6tdPuaVErcels-- From nobody Tue Feb 28 05:16:20 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 83D201295F8 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 05:16:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.522 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 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=-0.001, 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 sD8IRJLGmHWe for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 05:16:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFF1D1295F5 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 05:16:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5612; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1488287776; x=1489497376; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=FlsEckHxnmDEADRQBCRf/o3OGRBuc09cuRbrKfDCEt8=; b=cXhgAXgTJFaw2aAVv8R3dcpQLCPtjoo+wrjZSq/ry3mrLEJhtnBljqq8 s9mBA+8m+jtcsfn6r4GX+Yvg76RBJkNt309utVAJyo8Msnl7LVIK2wxzP 7z7JZRld5MKH3CHc7x2YU118QUMQAOOYD1ZzOsckK2Vvi/lErtjvKOa5z M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CaAQCud7VY/4wNJK1dGgEBAQECAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QgBAQEBgm5iYYEJB41coWyDHYIPgg0qiCI/GAECAQEBAQEBAWIohSReAYEAJgE?= =?us-ascii?q?EG4lvDqA9kiuLMgEBAQEBBQEBAQEBHgWGTIgGhyIFnCMBgVCFI4svggSFIIl9i?= =?us-ascii?q?DyKdQEfOIEBVBU+hk11AYkagQ0BAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,219,1484006400"; d="scan'208,217";a="217082165" Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 28 Feb 2017 13:16:15 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (xch-aln-004.cisco.com [173.36.7.14]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1SDGFki009315 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:16:15 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 07:16:15 -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; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 07:16:15 -0600 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: lp-wan Thread-Topic: Slot allocation for IETF 98 Thread-Index: AdKRxJZgT/nIDQBbRkaZQ3GrbdBQJQ== Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:16:01 +0000 Deferred-Delivery: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:15:30 +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: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_a0ed0345da8140f08f547fff31caac8aXCHRCD001ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [lp-wan] Slot allocation for IETF 98 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: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:16:18 -0000 --_000_a0ed0345da8140f08f547fff31caac8aXCHRCD001ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear LPWANers, The final agenda for IETF 98 has been published at: https://datatracker.iet= f.org/meeting/98/agenda.html. Keep this link, it's always useful with a num= ber of pointers to meeting needful things. Also consider the IETF applicati= on for your smartphone... So LPWAN will be meeting from 13:00 to 15:00 in the afternoon of Wednesday = March 29th in room Zurich A. If you'd like a slot to present a draft, please send a request to the chair= s (cc) by Wednesday March 15th. Please note that the deadline for draft sub= mission is UTC 23:59 on March 13th. We kindly request to send your slides for presentations by Wednesday March = 22nd. Any WG draft not being discussed/presented needs a status update sent to th= e list by Wednesday March 22nd. As always - we would appreciate your help in taking notes and jabber, pleas= e do volunteer! Looking forward to seeing you in all Chicago! Cheers, Alex and Pascal --_000_a0ed0345da8140f08f547fff31caac8aXCHRCD001ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear LPWANers,

 

The final agenda for IETF 98 has been published a= t: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/98/agenda.html. Keep this link, it= 's always useful with a number of pointers to meeting needful things. Also = consider the IETF application for your smartphone...

 

So LPWAN will be meeting from 13:00 to 15:00 in t= he afternoon of Wednesday March 29th in room Zurich A.=

 

If you'd like a slot to present a draft, please s= end a request to the chairs (cc) by Wednesday March 15th. Please= note that the deadline for draft submission is UTC 23:59 on March 13t= h.

 

We kindly request to send your slides for present= ations by Wednesday March 22nd.

 

Any WG draft not being discussed/presented needs = a status update sent to the list by Wednesday March 22nd.

 

As always - we would appreciate your help in taki= ng notes and jabber, please do volunteer!

 

Looking forward to seeing you in all Chicago!

 

Cheers,

 

Alex and Pascal<= /p>

--_000_a0ed0345da8140f08f547fff31caac8aXCHRCD001ciscocom_--