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

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

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