Re: [lp-wan] New Version Notification for draft-vilajosana-6lpwa-lora-hc-01.txt

Xavier Vilajosana <xvilajosana@worldsensing.com> Fri, 17 June 2016 03:18 UTC

Return-Path: <xvilajosana@worldsensing.com>
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 9E59112DA90 for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=worldsensing.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 WD5-_98PvaKY for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22a.google.com (mail-oi0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22a]) (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 43D6512D81E for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id d132so99166540oig.1 for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=worldsensing.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4U8pYqaiJi/NC0PpLYrJJPOn9uO1MPTiJvjveur3GsI=; b=T+nX8Q8qxOC4/v/JQAXOYg4/AzndaJ93sQsvY8w4Y52nJx3niVB9VtuX0BP+tlMAX7 U7KzYcM3HYB5/HzXdEAXIkPSe4HBoofegFOwD3uAh1L+FIdwOR2/V6UzTRKjkMsKkmGR P2t9fmaltMTw9fXoubJsJYbuyRaLELq3kafVY=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4U8pYqaiJi/NC0PpLYrJJPOn9uO1MPTiJvjveur3GsI=; b=j5tm5A9L8ZN9qmh81+38XVoDIqzl5zZwPS0b6bBhenJ+CdwY7gwcovUM392uun489t /HV9oDCOAIOpA44wx2t9UcBPYAeAdPdbs5BNpoqQuFX1otW2UYviRHbeqpl/cXdTn85n UNQpqitjhvykvVVi0kP2GqNKjd0UU1t4QB7COkbNsmVcAJiV1R0W8nb8x28tbDvHIhiA uriKFv2tDitTgy0yjr9GS2BrsZAsT4IFx2lPElNAlPo5zaLwu3RN/jDUKwTZiP2v2/Tt NwZ2oRFlovVDPtvnZdW969oHx9VXRFW/XCD1e5A6s4KSKEoyJqqntWBzF2rn4/08xXp5 iwyA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKTf49Mdkk0iWaA4kzb+1by11AtRMJcqoyBvWqErb3wzA1/VqapswN292T5jW0VYBpf1aj56GXxhU9iyGlJwCbH8ptLRJNfeWpcs6Qa7Xp74T7ukoTEWzKlM7X4rA0/YIeqEQ==
X-Received: by 10.157.61.73 with SMTP id a67mr226081otc.48.1466133509368; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:18:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.191.70 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9722d6e6dad83e226e7b4a137df59d66.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
References: <20160606093615.20895.52298.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAFLuR66QJhpaHZABYnbEn_LEDZOGsi80EQvwtcP_88eAYS-9Rw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOPRf-eTZGdTAqcCyMb9TVpf24kFvvdgPntwz=xx8g3rkDQzyw@mail.gmail.com> <994706B3-BD6F-4483-80D5-FC0C973E527A@ackl.io> <CAFLuR65VzPJcDXp4LWd4bd4JyN+3=rJPFBHguzTHgjv3t+b+bQ@mail.gmail.com> <E1D4D7A0-1C6F-4ABD-A8D7-885FC56D1F27@ackl.io> <9722d6e6dad83e226e7b4a137df59d66.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
From: Xavier Vilajosana <xvilajosana@worldsensing.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:18:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFLuR64d7OS3Kgkyy8h1Lj4PGGqTkqM9-=7ujCp0u3=s=3V=kg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Carles Gomez Montenegro <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c14282051021053570cfec"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lp-wan/-70v_GUnYs4iG44GlvlxfCIBazM>
Cc: lp-wan@ietf.org, josep.paradells@entel.upc.edu, Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk, Ana Minaburo <ana@ackl.io>
Subject: Re: [lp-wan] New Version Notification for draft-vilajosana-6lpwa-lora-hc-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 \(LR-WAN\)" <lp-wan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lp-wan>, <mailto:lp-wan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lp-wan/>
List-Post: <mailto:lp-wan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lp-wan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan>, <mailto:lp-wan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 03:18:32 -0000

Hi Carles, Ana,

see inline [XV],

2016-06-15 15:35 GMT+02:00 Carles Gomez Montenegro <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>:

> Hi Ana,
>
> Please find below some inline comments:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> >> On 09 Jun 2016, at 20:57, Xavier Vilajosana
> >> <xvilajosana@worldsensing.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Anna,
> >>
> >> -Why do you talk only about LORAWAN and not a general solution for all
> >> the lpwa technologies? which are the differences and how you can adapt
> >> your work on Lorawan over all these technologies?
> >>
> >> because we wanted to be specific on how to map the LoRaWAN PIB to IPv6.
> >> Do other LPWA technologies have the same DevID fields for example? I
> >> wonder if everything can be generalized and then be implementable by
> >> different vendors so they can intro.
> >
> >
> > AM: Well, I see, but I think that we need to give a global solution to
> > keep interoperability, we cannot study every single detail of each
> > technology. and I think that describing the global architecture is very
> > important in order to define the different solutions.
>
> [CG] A global architecture, comprising generic components to the extent
> possible, is definitely desirable. However, there may be
> technology-specific aspects that might not be possible to capture in a
> generic solution. It will be important to identify these (if any). Input
> in terms of target technology descriptions will be crucial here.
>
> [XV] +1, Carles is right. There are aspects that cannot be generalized.
E.g., an IPv6 address cannot be build from the same fields in different
technologies. Someone has to say in a specific document what are the fields
and how they are used for each particular technology. (e.g look at IPv6
over BTLE document or IPv6 over NFC).


> >> -Which are the differences with the draft-gomez-lpwan-ipv6-analysis-00
> >> which also explain the IPv6 addressing?
> >>  for me Carles draft is an analysis of what are the challenges, and
> >> tries to indicate directions, e.g giving some indications for address
> >> autoconfiguration, fragmentation, etc.. but I guess if we want an
> >> standard way to map IPv6 to a specific technology someone should say
> >> what are the bits and bytes that we should use.
> >>
> > AM: For my understanding your draft is complementary to
> > draft-gomez-lpwan-ipv6-analysis-00, it is very confusing to have two
> > documents, perhaps you could work together?
>
> [CG] draft-gomez-lpwan-ipv6-analysis mostly analyses the applicability of
> existing specifications (mainly, 6Lo/6LoWPAN) to support IPv6 in the
> LPWAN/6LPWA space, and highlights related challenges and existing gaps.
> While there may be some overlap, I understand that
> draft-vilajosana-6lpwa-lora-hc focuses specifically on IPv6 over LoRa.
>
> [XV] +1 draft-gomez-lpwan-ipv6-analysis is an informational work that aims
to identify gaps, etc.. We tried to be specific on how to map bits and
bytes in a specific technology which is LoRaWAN.


> >> -Which will be the differences with the
> >> draft-gomez-lpwan-fragmentation-header-00 which already talk about the
> >> fragmentation?
> >> We have a section for fragmentation, but is emptyl. When we started that
> >> there were no other drafts talking about fragmentation, we also were
> >> aware about some initiatives to add L2 fragmentation in LoRa.  So we
> >> thought to talk about that. Then Carles came out with his draft and we
> >> follow it in order to see if it works for LoRaWAN.  No problem on
> >> removing fragmentation if the direction is clear with Carles approach.
> >
> > AM: As with the other draft, I think your work is complementary and
> > perhaps having a good draft will be better?
>
> [CG] draft-gomez-lpwan-fragmentation-header defines a generic mechanism
> (i.e. it is not specific to one LPWAN technology in particular).
>
> [XV] we understand that and if this draft provides a solution that works
for LoRaWAN in our proposal we will point to it. There is no need to repeat
work.

> <snip>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carles
>
> regards,
Xavi

-- 


Aragó, 383, 4th floor
08013 Barcelona, Spain

9-10 Carlos Place, Mayfair
London W1K 3AT, UK

*This email may contain confidential information and may be subject to 
professional secrecy. Its dissemination, copying, distribution, 
reproduction, forwarding or any other unauthorized use is strictly 
prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please notify us 
immediately and arrange for its deletion, together with any attached 
documents.*


*Este correo electrónico puede contener información estrictamente 
confidencial, y puede estar sometido al secreto profesional. Está prohibida 
su difusión, copia, distribución, reproducción, reenvío o cualquier otro 
uso no autorizado. En caso de recibir este correo por error, rogamos nos 
lo comunique de inmediato y proceda a su eliminación, así como de cualquier 
documento que se adjunte.*