[lp-wan] re-order header field request

Arun <arun@ackl.io> Mon, 19 June 2017 10:38 UTC

Return-Path: <arun@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 0682812953F for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 03:38:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 zqHrzLWHBzSj for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 03:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (relay6-d.mail.gandi.net [IPv6:2001:4b98:c:538::198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 229B412954C for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 03:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mfilter48-d.gandi.net (mfilter48-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.179]) by relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8FC5FB8C7; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 12:38:20 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter48-d.gandi.net
Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net ([IPv6:::ffff:217.70.183.198]) by mfilter48-d.gandi.net (mfilter48-d.gandi.net [::ffff:10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y-YHQiGX2xqW; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 12:38:19 +0200 (CEST)
X-Originating-IP: 192.44.77.204
Received: from [192.168.1.157] (nat-asr-incub-b204.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [192.44.77.204]) (Authenticated sender: arun@acklio.com) by relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 51C59FB8CF; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 12:38:18 +0200 (CEST)
From: Arun <arun@ackl.io>
To: lp-wan <lp-wan@ietf.org>
Cc: Ana Minaburo <ana@ackl.io>, Carles Gomez Montenegro <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>, Laurent Toutain <laurent@ackl.io>
Message-ID: <386f3ac3-cc15-3fe7-8a7e-04d5be66c0ce@ackl.io>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 12:38:15 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="TD9vQpWNNded7GnhgwrgCXvitOVhj4Okc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lp-wan/E55rBKPnLUi7s7MtetwoyCYpZdc>
Subject: [lp-wan] re-order header field request
X-BeenThere: lp-wan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:38:40 -0000

Hi all,
Absence of window bit in the last fragment of the packet makes it tricky
to unmarshall the header at the receiver.
As I see it, the receiver up front shall know the length of the CFN
field depending on the Window size configured but doesn't know to
anticipate the last fragment unless indicated by CFN.
So I think,  we need to maintain same order on all fragment headers.

existing;

      		<------------ R ---------->
                          <--T--> 1 <--N-->
               +-- ... --+- ... -+-+- ... -+
               | Rule ID | DTag  |W|  CFN  |
               +-- ... --+- ... -+-+- ... -+

shall be;
     		<------------ R ---------->
                          <--T--> <--N--> 1
               +-- ... --+- ... -+- ... -+-+
               | Rule ID | DTag  |  CFN  |W|
               +-- ... --+- ... -+- ... -+-+

and for the last fragment
   		<------------ R ---------->
                          <--T--> <--N--> 
               +-- ... --+- ... -+- ... -+-+
               | Rule ID | DTag  |  CFN  |MIC
               +-- ... --+- ... -+- ... -+-+


what do you think?


thanks,
Arun