Re: [lp-wan] Architecture

Robert Moskowitz <rgm-ietf@htt-consult.com> Tue, 28 June 2022 11:12 UTC

Return-Path: <rgm-ietf@htt-consult.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 2A415C13181E for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2022 04:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.781
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.781 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.876, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 pDQHvWIRZcC1 for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2022 04:12:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [23.123.122.147]) (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 33BFAC1345E9 for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jun 2022 04:12:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA9A562573; Tue, 28 Jun 2022 07:11:50 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at htt-consult.com
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id s8cbsSJK8wfC; Tue, 28 Jun 2022 07:11:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.20.15.47] (unknown [65.38.93.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4E7AD624D4; Tue, 28 Jun 2022 07:11:40 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------otQwedAizdSjthgsfwO0PmsJ"
Message-ID: <05e32d91-ed31-771c-3c87-dcac4dedcc35@htt-consult.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 07:12:12 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Laurent Toutain <laurent.toutain@imt-atlantique.fr>, lp-wan <lp-wan@ietf.org>
References: <CABONVQb+OwCTsLzMtnkakHsCaGpfg03rVihgegRD3Jf0zG=LMg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm-ietf@htt-consult.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABONVQb+OwCTsLzMtnkakHsCaGpfg03rVihgegRD3Jf0zG=LMg@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lp-wan/6O1dI3au5wz8TQ0umI1tWyi2hYE>
Subject: Re: [lp-wan] Architecture
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, 28 Jun 2022 11:12:38 -0000

WRT architecture:

I mentioned so months ago that the architecture does not properly 
represent security layers like ESP where the transport is within the 
security wrapper and SCHC for it would be part of the security 
negotiation as in

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mglt-ipsecme-ikev2-diet-esp-extension/

Further for cases where the security layer is general having SCHC as the 
Next Header for transport layer compression as I show in:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moskowitz-lpwan-ipnumber/

Currently I have no conflict against the lpwan session and would 
contribute on the architecture subject.

Bob

On 6/28/22 03:52, Laurent Toutain wrote:
> Dear lpwaner,
>
> I thought we had an interim this afternoon, but the next meeting is in 
> Philly. I would like to discuss on the architecture and the YANG data 
> model.
>
> Current data model is limited to RFC 8724 and RFC8824 and can be 
> easily augmented for compound Ack and OAM. What is missing is how to 
> manage the rules. In openSCHC set of rules are assigned to a device 
> and there is a single core SCHC.
>
> Carles raised the need to study a more generic approach for mesh 
> network where the notion of device and SCHC core do not exists anymore 
> and rules are more an association between a device and a core. This 
> may be solved by identifying the set of rules by a device ID and a 
> core ID.
>
> RFC 9039 (thanks to Alex for the ref) defines a way to build URN that 
> can be used has identifier. We can use 2 URN to identify a set of 
> rules. But that ASCII characters and it is not a compact representation.
>
> So we have the current YANG data model that defines a set of rules 
> that will be augmented with a set of rule ID pointing both ends IDs 
> (one of them can be none for a star topology and both of them for PPP).
>
> In my opinion, we should specify on the architecture document, a more 
> generic model covering PPP, star and mesh and also more precisely the 
> interaction between them. From that, we will be able to define an 
> augmentation of the basic data model.
>
> The way we include a mesh model with SCHC can be an interesting thing 
> to investigate during the hackathon.
>
> See you,
>
> Laurent
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lp-wan mailing list
> lp-wan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan