Re: [lp-wan] review of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moskowitz-lpwan-ipnumber/

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Wed, 06 July 2022 17:14 UTC

Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@gmail.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 52108C14F73F for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2022 10:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.854
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 W0CDkEJ9USKI for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2022 10:14:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x131.google.com (mail-lf1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::131]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B867C15A747 for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jul 2022 10:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x131.google.com with SMTP id z25so9449941lfr.2 for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Jul 2022 10:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=ILFejuFkw38a7kb2Cso75pvTkDpLjrgPZqd/E2+s374=; b=OJIQmguArVvSWxVy/SCX+OEB55JwpNp72usxGFBHxWMseK3Tn1/X8qN7NWAw2GHBF7 SdhCwqayEHIO2ciP4SqZWZiuYLaGvBnWhCjgjzFO3dKNUia7pGvsS3jQRteVAC2RG+XD SgrNJw3Jsm1IeOXSPyQGj14tjzOKFZw/uKcQy4ONnA2q/AdFknkISvBjcrZmBo2EPZLd tNa31DtzjPVNCjrCaejY7+EkhCFZUkdEdGOscmpFtZg9mt1Bl9hLloJZfifWlzRneW36 1YhkjuboMtQ/359s1LdLo00dC/LjRKSQ1YydH++UM2HIHmHte5XDnP8UgNRyPAZZz83F GTGw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ILFejuFkw38a7kb2Cso75pvTkDpLjrgPZqd/E2+s374=; b=AqhsO5JpLo0edBoC4XNf27j8YUk4St9Qj5DQZG+bU1qSP9ymrN3K7s+Q38KlCtc/Ab m9JOgQc94YjTx+d/pB/71p0kqmp56VASxpm8ogYCy8ufHhxjB7jXMHIWT035I3mld1F1 Y6KCefzrs6uu+3mgfPbQP+LgywLz9XNKlA1PoFLFA2OOGMEPmw8OVnA3oFtF82IszdUE D+U5mi6Ty6w/oxxFvnrTasUE/547HTZQ7dlechJQqb1yu1Yf4ghmRXmxe0XECyRAZQi6 FOrwyrY/p92a1B1Q8FwNxYlly8ZrwufxSo+PboQebuIkU8Ib+AxcB65eGZbKWXkMDsqC cpUA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora+Uie+9tonoLhSRc/gzkEYB4qxaj8U68ZUtDreuCHozG0Qf2jsS NhVHBCIufePQufc8PtV5qS4r219oo/V5DA1k/r4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1sj5eXeb1zDb4+I1t0c4U6VpxASQNlFB8wVE7TViP9Vjn2jbh6Ir1xBMVctT6fVa4NIWrOjTu3JLPkkHqDNst8=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3b95:b0:47f:bc38:6bfe with SMTP id g21-20020a0565123b9500b0047fbc386bfemr25578454lfv.507.1657127649041; Wed, 06 Jul 2022 10:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CO1PR11MB48815290EBCB484D4E4E3736D8809@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CO1PR11MB48815290EBCB484D4E4E3736D8809@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2022 12:13:56 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC8QAcfJRes+T0xhLZd1uCjQ71tHa7d_=-d7udD6sS5SM8HhSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: lp-wan <lp-wan@ietf.org>, Robert Moskowitz <rgm-ietf@htt-consult.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000de607d05e32618cf"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lp-wan/RBKQXmWA6WBik7fdwgZtQYIHFws>
Subject: Re: [lp-wan] review of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moskowitz-lpwan-ipnumber/
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: Wed, 06 Jul 2022 17:14:26 -0000

Hi all,

I quickly read the draft.
I don't understand why UA (unmanned aircraft, or a drone?) would need LPWAN?

Behcet

On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 8:38 AM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert=
40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Dear all
>
> I reviewed
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moskowitz-lpwan-ipnumber/
>
> Please find my comments below.
>
> In short, I believe that the document is useful and already well advanced
> and I would support the adoption when times come. But I need to ensure that
> a NH number is enough, vs. a new option that would transport SCHC
> parameters like Rule Set ID and/or Instance ID.
>
> I suspect we'll make the call at IETF 114 but we need feedback by then, so
> please join in if you wish the draft to progress rapidly.
>
> "
> If the Next Header in the IP header were SCHC, not ESP, a clear
> segregation of incoming traffic is directly supportable.
> "
> SCHC maintains P2P sessions (called Instances) that are associated with a
> P2P transport. Can we have one and one only SCHC Instance over SPI? How is
> the SCHC rule set determined?
> In the case of SCHC over PPP,  the PPP connection indicates the session
> one for one, and the rule set can be indicated as  URI in the
> IPv6-Compression-Protocol Configuration option see
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thubert-intarea-schc-over-ppp-03#section-3
>
> "
> Where it is possible with ESP's SPI to mitigate inbound packet processing
> challenges implicit SCHC would generate, DTLS header does not safely even
> provide this and a SCHC IP number is necessary to separate traffic.
> "
> Is the above undoable with TLS?
>
> "
> Operation starts using Veriport's WiFi service.
> "
> Can we avoid brand names?
>
> "IANA" section: The new protocol should be added to
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xhtml
> shouldn't it? And then, by ricochet it will effectively end in
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers.
>
> Keep safe;
>
> Pascal
>
> _______________________________________________
> lp-wan mailing list
> lp-wan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan
>