Re: [lp-wan] overview draft with some text...

[Juan Carlos Zuniga <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alper,

From: Alper Yegin [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: October 30, 2016 4:50 PM
To: Juan Carlos Zuniga <[e-mail]>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>; lp-wan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [lp-wan] overview draft with some text...

Hello Juan Carlos and Stephen,


On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 1:44 AM, Juan Carlos Zuniga <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Stephen,

Thanks for posting the draft!

I noticed that the goal of supporting common IP services on these LPWAN technologies is mentioned in the abstract and in the intro. However, the document focuses on differences and gaps and does not say much about common goals. Perhaps we should also add some text about the shared goals for all LPWAN technologies, which according to the charter would include the definition of common 1) management features, 2) security features, and 3) application profiles.

Supporting IP over LPWANs is clear.
But when it comes to tackling these other aspects (1..3 above), we need some more discussion to have concrete ideas, because:
- They can mean different things to different people,
- A gap in IETF's mind may not be a gap in the other organization's mind. If we want to increase the chances of IETF specs getting adopted, we need to make sure there is a common view between the IETF and the other organizations.
[JCZ] Fully agree. That’s why I was interested in capturing both common goals and gaps in the document, so that they can be used as baseline for discussion.




   There are some differences

   however, e.g., the Narrowband IoT specifications Section 4.2<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-lpwan-overview-01#section-4.2> also aim

   for increased indoor coverage.

Indoor coverage is not only aimed by the NB-IoT. It also applies to LoRaWAN, and maybe even others as well.
[JCZ] True. All these technologies have a link budget that goes well beyond line of sight, and most include not only indoor but also underground applications.

Juan Carlos

Alper










Also, I've recently posted a revision of the sigfox draft to update some figures that were mentioned in July. Since we are saying "as of today" in section 4.3.1 of draft-farrell-lpwan-overview-01, could you please update the second paragraph with the figures in: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zuniga-lpwan-sigfox-system-description-01#section-7

Thanks,

Juan Carlos

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lp-wan [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: October 29, 2016 1:57 AM
> To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: [lp-wan] overview draft with some text...
>
>
> Hiya,
>
> I've incorporated descriptive text about some of the "input" technologies for
> lpwan in -01 of the overview draft. [1] That includes text from a lora draft
> that Alper and I also posted recently [2] and from the existing sigfox and nb-
> iot drafts. Next up will be adding text from the gap analysis work in the
> places indicated. I hope to post that before the cutoff. We may also get text
> on WI-SUN by then too.
>
> Comments on any inaccuracies or omissions in [1] are of course very
> welcome. There's a github repo [3] if anyone prefers that. (Though my github
> foo is modest so bear with me if taking that approach:-) I'll make sure that
> any substantive discussion initiated on github is reflected to the list.
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-lpwan-overview-01
> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-lpwan-lora-overview-01
> [3] https://github.com/sftcd/lpwan-ov
>
_______________________________________________
lp-wan mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan