[lp-wan] Fwd: draft-architecture-02-inputs TERMINOLOGY

Ana Minaburo <ana@ackl.io> Tue, 23 May 2023 18:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ana@ackl.io>
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 64910C1524DB for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 May 2023 11:19:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ackl-io.20221208.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t7lqsp7KX-r4 for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 May 2023 11:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw1-x1133.google.com (mail-yw1-x1133.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1133]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82A88C1524BC for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 May 2023 11:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw1-x1133.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-55db055b412so74817557b3.0 for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 May 2023 11:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ackl-io.20221208.gappssmtp.com; s=20221208; t=1684865987; x=1687457987; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=xyyIDZhcTxgo3JoiWAEOwJZmM0lPreTxil6nQP1eCSs=; b=mEk/vxuY/grX8dA1thz2kHg2yE8V3sEJuQPzgFWNsx+SYPY8++gQBowrzWPH1kw1Vy V4Dwjm2YbdsA9pyWCY/dG0p0h1wv6ZrqLPObW+e4h/w+hfJcFnp8iCgxYMjcdBPJ64zb Vp2fjURdjyy0VbhV3DUiJzgw68DiBaDfSoqoXfLwASY5qlYtFfdFpriUtZYlxYmpSVJH Odw+feHFYwtvU8/vri2pIE8/5KgVzS2tYE23pkCyM+mOJpb73jRcUCfkCYwRaffN+0+8 PtKvi4Og/UfVtVGECizyuxJfFetaiPfKeJRv/Lm8szkOH9hJ/tAxPFJZmH65XZxv6e3l VgCw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1684865987; x=1687457987; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=xyyIDZhcTxgo3JoiWAEOwJZmM0lPreTxil6nQP1eCSs=; b=ec/VDl9xip6e/V+PyKn2UNP0EvLrdADBPY998EPVREDcg21JblHXGpkv8uW7IFLX8q uBZhSHE5FE35lTuu2ZYJd+2+nvR0m9de1NETsMW6TrEZlNgyEW+TbWCWyfXml4vDHJn1 Livxk+pOCyBGviH91Ew5z6FW8fPaIB6hLTW/60KFpsleUgMVywGByKs937auTsTcBHm8 I9G3jnQXLv6fm4Dch6oyGieoSLNJsAWnrxdN7LU98SvWKKo9Ue6txWmhymLy22s0FPlq gvlp8whSxPnRd7ssF3OtF22y7I8q3r9JMoUoBcv7qtsdZx6BkmlGF5D0cbrQXpracHZs Yoag==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDyAsXvKabpmuoy1XTYgl/k5UHqpCAVpT0CDGcf4NoLw8VQWExZp nroqJdLfBwRQRlEAlvWB6EbnM4XMNvU9afdSjoJ9nVEkYlaKeRlEk3A=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ43vWK8S2BhVGA5lTKb1xMNH6OgG7YIrbtAYc6u9+xj4Ngv91RWWtu+sveJXkj4tEPH3Mo6bo+/rF8VsRxwhSY=
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:d54f:0:b0:55a:64b3:fc13 with SMTP id x76-20020a0dd54f000000b0055a64b3fc13mr15690672ywd.1.1684865987580; Tue, 23 May 2023 11:19:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAAbr+nRsL0--uh0JCCc_xDQ8cjG3soSWC9ssh0uXjjHqFyr4vg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAbr+nRsL0--uh0JCCc_xDQ8cjG3soSWC9ssh0uXjjHqFyr4vg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ana Minaburo <ana@ackl.io>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 20:19:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAbr+nRpOTi6b=vdiU23278ZVhKtPVsar=-mKbjKxGs8m4Qk3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: lp-wan <lp-wan@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000af2d6505fc606e7f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lp-wan/0F1E3Bmhb17nq-VdsQHrujOoL34>
Subject: [lp-wan] Fwd: draft-architecture-02-inputs TERMINOLOGY
X-BeenThere: lp-wan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 23 May 2023 18:19:55 -0000

Hello lpwaners,
sorry for the address error.
Ana

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Ana Minaburo <ana@ackl.io>
Date: Tue, May 23, 2023 at 4:06 PM
Subject: draft-architecture-02-inputs TERMINOLOGY
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>
Cc: <lpwan@ietf.org>, <schc@ietf.org>


Hello Pascal,

I've divided my mail into different threads to discuss each point
individually.

I've copied the initial discussion.
---

The big question for terminology is whether RFC 8724 is the reference.
We'll need to talk about that. For the newcomer, the architecture should be
the reference, even if that means impacting RFC 8724.



[Ana] We need to make this draft the reference and agree if the terminology
of RFC8724 is used, which could be a good thing for those that have already
read it and implemented it. For the newcomers, at least until we find a
consensus, they must read RFC8724, and follow this discussion. Of course,
I'm for finding a consensus and using it. Let's try to agree and find good
terminology.



-set of rules or set of Compression/Decompression (C/D) rules.

> Is it the context or something else?



Yes. My problem is that the real "context," understood as an operational
environment, should represent all the data associated with a particular
instance, and each instance should have its own.

RFC 8724 uses "context" for a rule set, which is instantiated for each
instance and does not represent the whole context of that instance.



-rule database. I didn't find any definition for it. Does it mean a context
plus something else? or only context?



The text says

"

... select from the rule database the set of rules that apply to the SCHC
Device and the current state of their exchange, e.g., timers and previous
fragments.

"

For the lack of a better term, we used a database. Happy to fix it. That's
the operational environment I was talking about, and the set of
instantiated rules is just a component of that. The state includes timers
and whatever else this instance is manipulating.



-Rule set. Do you mean context?



Does context mean instantiated or not? Like the rules could have $IP for
the source IP, and then once instantiated for a device, it becomes
2001:dba::1


[Ana] Do we need to introduce the instance parameter in the definition of
context?

You use it, so we must differentiate each instance from the whole.

Introducing the instantiating parameter makes us three terms.

- Context. In an operational environment should represent all the data
associated with a particular instance, and each instance should have its
own.

- Set of Rules. Is the context instantiated for each instance

- Rule set. Is the instance used in a device


For instance, if the instance is not used, we only have context as the
information required to make the C/D and F/R.


How are things most precise? With or without this instance parameter?

In my opinion it is easier to only have context.



Ana