Re: [lp-wan] Architecture

Agreed 😊 

We need to republish a version of the architecture. Maybe I can add that the topologies are covered and that in Hub and Spoke the hub in uplink?
Then for a P2P, one end has to be declared uplink. Typically a session is formed by one node calling the other e.g., establishing a SCHC session over P2P. 
Could we define that the caller is downlink and the called party is uplink? This was we'd abstain from impacting SCHC itself. The determination of up and down is needed but external to the protocol.

What do you guys think?

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lp-wan <lp-wan-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Carles Gomez Montenegro
> Sent: mardi 28 juin 2022 18:35
> To: Laurent Toutain <laurent.toutain@imt-atlantique.fr>
> Cc: lp-wan <lp-wan@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [lp-wan] Architecture
> 
> Hi Laurent,
> 
> Thanks a lot for bringing up this topic!
> 
> Please find below some inline comments:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I think your proposal is equivalent to determining which is the role (Dev or
> App) of each endpoint for a given Rule.
> 
> In fact, we will soon submit a revised version of draft-gomez-6lo-schc-
> 15dot4-02. In -03, the idea to address the Dev/App problem (i.e., which is
> the Dev or App role of a node in a mesh or peer-to-peer network) is simply to
> stick to what we called Option 1 in IETF 113 (i.e., sticking to the RFC 8724
> terms) and define/configure beforehand who will be Dev and who will be App
> when a Rule is written (since the Rule is written beforehand anyway).
> 
> So I understand that we are aligned!
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I was thinking the same. The architecture document needs to cover all these
> topologies.
> 
> > The way we include a mesh model with SCHC can be an interesting thing
> > to investigate during the hackathon.
> 
> Cool! :)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Carles
> 
> 
> > See you,
> >
> > Laurent
> > _______________________________________________
> > lp-wan mailing list
> > lp-wan@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lp-wan mailing list
> lp-wan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan