Re: [icnrg] Last Call: draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Tue, 11 February 2020 22:33 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
X-Original-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CF31120180 for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:33:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_SBL=0.5, URIBL_SBL_A=0.1] autolearn=no 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 mjE6eWFGzV0F for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:33:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from haggis.mythic-beasts.com (haggis.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:86:1000:0:2:1]) (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 3BA58120018 for <icnrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:33:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [81.187.2.149] (port=34985 helo=[192.168.0.66]) by haggis.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1j1e5X-0007ss-OS; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:33:04 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <21b6df2d-fef2-9cb8-e01f-4856828dad95@haw-hamburg.de>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:33:01 +0000
Cc: Dirk Kutscher <ietf@dkutscher.net>, ICNRG <icnrg@irtf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <899FF73C-406A-4F36-A1DF-EC696EE00DA9@csperkins.org>
References: <F96FA010-DD36-435A-A81D-223C99D11FCC@dkutscher.net> <CBE1C518-EF44-4840-B217-D9B7CAF592DA@csperkins.org> <375d73b9f80446809e8a3af4945121c7@HUB01.mailcluster.haw-hamburg.de> <21b6df2d-fef2-9cb8-e01f-4856828dad95@haw-hamburg.de>
To: "Thomas C. Schmidt" <t.schmidt@haw-hamburg.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg/9wqSipdVuHTem6lgRD1e9MMxHdY>
Subject: Re: [icnrg] Last Call: draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan
X-BeenThere: icnrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Information-Centric Networking research group discussion list <icnrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/icnrg>, <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/icnrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:icnrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg>, <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:33:07 -0000

Thanks – this seems like a good approach.
Colin



> On 11 Feb 2020, at 12:07, Thomas C. Schmidt <t.schmidt@haw-hamburg.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 11/02/2020 11:54, Dirk Kutscher wrote:
> 
>>> Drafts to be published as RFCs in the IRTF stream need to include
>>> various notices, as described in RFC 5743 Section 2.1. Some of those
>>> notices look to be missing from this draft and will need to be added
>>> before it can be published.
>> Yes, good point — that should be added.
>>> It’s also important for a draft to be published as an Experimental
>>> RFC to be clear about what experiment being performed. Section 10 of
>>> the draft includes a brief implementation report, describing
>>> experiments that have been conducted using this protocol, which is
>>> good, but the draft says very little about what experiments remain to
>>> be done and what can be learnt from further experimental deployment of
>>> this protocol. Would it be possible to add some additional context
>>> about how this fits with ongoing experiments in this space?
>> So, that may actually be a good general advice for publishing
>> Experimental RFCs in the IRTF. Normally, we would say that a
>> specification (like this one) would hopefully lead to additional
>> implementations, so that there would be interop tests and potentially
>> tests in larger networks (scalability, performance etc.).
>> In the IRTF, we might be able to do a little better and provide some
>> guidance as to what might be interesting experiments to do, what are
>> things that we need to understand better etc.
>> How do the authors feel about adding something in this direction?
> 
> Authors feel fine: We agree and will add such parts.
> 
>> Regarding next steps, we (chairs) suggest that the authors produce a
>> revision reflecting those comments. Since these are relatively minor, we
>> don’t need another last call (unless the authors prefer that), so that
>> we would then move to IRSG review.
> 
> Yup, great: We should be able to provide within this month.
> 
> Best,
> Thomas
> 
> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 22 Jan 2020, at 08:42, Dirk Kutscher <ietf@dkutscher.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hello ICNRG,
>>>> 
>>>> This is a last call for comments on draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan (ICN
>>>> Adaptation to LowPAN Networks (ICN LoWPAN)).
>>>> 
>>>> We want to publish this as an Experimental RFC. Please read it and
>>>> let us know if you think there are issues. The last call ends on
>>>> February 7th, i.e., 2.5 weeks from today.
>>>> 
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan/
>>>> 
>>>> Abstract
>>>>   This document defines a convergence layer for CCNx and NDN over
>>>> IEEE
>>>>   802.15.4 LoWPAN networks.  A new frame format is specified to adapt
>>>>   CCNx and NDN packets to the small MTU size of IEEE 802.15.4.  For
>>>>   that, syntactic and semantic changes to the TLV-based header
>>>> formats
>>>>   are described.  To support compatibility with other LoWPAN
>>>>   technologies that may coexist on a wireless medium, the dispatching
>>>>   scheme provided by 6LoWPAN is extended to include new dispatch
>>>> types
>>>>   for CCNx and NDN.  Additionally, the link fragmentation component
>>>> of
>>>>   the 6LoWPAN dispatching framework is applied to ICN chunks.  In its
>>>>   second part, the document defines stateless and stateful
>>>> compression
>>>>   schemes to improve efficiency on constrained links.  Stateless
>>>>   compression reduces TLV expressions to static header fields for
>>>>   common use cases.  Stateful compression schemes elide state local
>>>> to
>>>>   the LoWPAN and replace names in data packets by short local
>>>>   identifiers.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Dirk on behalf of ICNRG chairs
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> icnrg mailing list
>>>> icnrg@irtf.org
>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Colin Perkins
>>> https://csperkins.org/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> icnrg mailing list
>>> icnrg@irtf.org
>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg
>> _______________________________________________
>> icnrg mailing list
>> icnrg@irtf.org
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg
> 
> -- 
> 
> Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
> ° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences                  Berliner Tor 7 °
> ° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group   20099 Hamburg, Germany °
> ° http://inet.haw-hamburg.de/members/schmidt      Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 °
> 



-- 
Colin Perkins
https://csperkins.org/