Re: [Lake] LoRaWAN use case; Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-lake-reqs-01 Thu, 02 April 2020 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263C73A1715 for <>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 09:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HMpNg9SsgDP5 for <>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 09:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A8773A1712 for <>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 09:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.9]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 48tSkQ3n0fz8sfw; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 18:11:58 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=ORANGE001; t=1585843918; bh=iJPy571zOMTpbiD9qAzmVo7jg0CgUZQjS6INOkFlyHA=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=Yu4AxQIkRjicHvcLu3pdeE3Jr1AGbZiufUGn7tVjdBDJt0St53YfrpyOeg0mMOj4h o1o6zFvzHlkXaEthJFpz0OHXGSTWiHqdAR0tTKj3sKEiQlMWzWIoBNnKR+cqE2tAId GT8yb/hVNdD//430httd0nqdAJt7YkDpY6HAb5yPqBPRuIIGaVb8oyd/DxyV0E/5IU a1gIeoXxuYfqx2EseXAKpOraemXcQgYGG/9B6rjgwa+8AkT9QuRnz2T2YnF4+3evhq n8SRVhpBvw5OSjmkw/g8teCHr308Hw1Kov4M4yFXTaf++c27zK/mubEpEpvw7jjdqk gCVhSuI3YAJlw==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.89]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 48tSkQ2zlCz5vN8; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 18:11:58 +0200 (CEST)
From: <>
To: =?utf-8?B?R8O2cmFuIFNlbGFuZGVy?= <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Lake] LoRaWAN use case; Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-lake-reqs-01
Thread-Index: AQHWCQlv5ekgv7JWHEuGVEPbCANb+g==
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 16:11:58 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DAAB6BB673184dominiquebarthelorangecom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Lake] LoRaWAN use case; Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-lake-reqs-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Lightweight Authenticated Key Exchange <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 16:12:04 -0000

Hello Göran, all

(not sure anymore how I should write my answer)

>So, the current benchmark and available data points are all compliant with your challenge.
The numbers you provide indeed seem pretty much inline with the challenge I proposed, and I'll keep checking them as the WG progresses.
However, lets not be said that my challenge mandates the solution you propose (3 flights and 1 message per packet at SF12).
In draft-ietf-lake-reqs-02, the justification for 3 flights is Section 2.10.4, which I find kind of hand-wavy. (e.g., one could provide a similarly-hand-wavy counter argument to the 2*60 bytes vs. 3*40 bytes discussion: a shorter frame is less likely to suffer collision).

My point starting this discussion was to mention the 1 hour delay step effect as a transmitter reaches 36 s of air-time, which is not accurately reflected in column G of your spreadsheet and in the requirements draft.

> I think a benchmark should include all messages of the AKE and I would propose that we don’t formulate it in terms of uplink/downlink.
As much as I would love a general benchmark, I think LoRaWAN is very much an asymmetrical network and we need to acknowledge this fact.
I think it would do the LoRaWAN community a real service if we expressed the LAKE benchmark as two distinct cases : device-initiated AKE and infrastructure-initiated AKE. This would make it easier to map results onto real deployment cases.

Best regards,



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.