Re: [lp-wan] Options to progress SCHC/Sigfox and new Compound ACK concept

["Prof. Diego Dujovne" <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,
             While I am for keeping a single draft per technology, I think
this time is worth the exception. +1 for option 2.
Regards,

    Diego

El mar., 22 de junio de 2021 04:34, Sergio Aguilar Romero <
[e-mail]> escribió:

> Hello everyone,
>
> +1 for Options 2.
>
> The RFC8724 defines the generic SCHC messages, hence a new draft may
> define the generic Compound ACK and data model, and then, each profile can
> define the specific requirements (e.g., if mandatory or not, if some
> ruleIDs are used for compound ACK, how it is different from the receiver
> abort, examples, etc). Other new functionalities may have the same path,
> generic specification with its data model, and implementation specifics in
> each profile.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sergio
>
>
> On Jun 22, 2021, at 9:56 AM, Ana Minaburo <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> +1 for Option 2.
>
> Ana
>
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 12:11 PM Carles Gomez Montenegro <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> +1 (for Option 2) as well.
>>
>> The Compound ACK extends the functionality defined in RFC 8724, and it may
>> be beneficial for several technologies. Therefore, it would be cleaner to
>> specify it in a generic, technology-independent way.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carles
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > +1 for Option 2.
>> > This is the cleanest way in the long run.
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Dominique
>> >
>> >
>> > From: lp-wan [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Diego S.
>> > Wistuba La Torre
>> > Sent: vendredi 18 juin 2021 19:17
>> > To: [e-mail]
>> > Subject: Re: [lp-wan] Options to progress SCHC/Sigfox and new Compound
>> ACK
>> > concept
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi all. I also favor option 2 as it allows the SCHC Compound ACK to be
>> > defined generally with no constraints to any SCHC Profile (and cleaner
>> > referencing to the document that defines it too). Then it should be
>> > extended and adapted to Profiles that want to implement it using their
>> own
>> > parameters and algorithms.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Diego S. Wistuba La Torre
>> > El 15-06-2021 a las 11:09, Juan Carlos Zuniga escribió:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > As discussed over the LPWAN interim meeting, we have a few options to
>> > progress the documents:
>> >
>> >
>> >   1.  Include in the SCHC/Sigfox draft [1] a Yang Data Model extension
>> of
>> > [2] to define the new SCHC Compound ACK as a Fragmentation parameter
>> >   2.  Split the SCHC/Sigfox draft [1] in the following way:
>> >
>> >      *   Write a new draft to define the SCHC Compound ACK and the
>> > associated extensions to the Data Model
>> >      *   Standalone SCHC/Sigfox profile
>> >
>> >   1.  Extend the existing Yang Data Model draft [2] to include the SCHC
>> > Compound ACK as a Fragmentation parameter
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-sigfox-06
>> > [2]
>> >
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model-04
>> >
>> > Please reply if you have any views.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Juan Carlos
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lp-wan mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan
>>
> _______________________________________________
> lp-wan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lp-wan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan
>