Re: [lp-wan] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-07: (with COMMENT)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 30/01/18 16:01, d.sturek wrote:
> Hi Stephen, For Wi-SUN FAN, the use of TCP is optional. 

Sure. I think Mirja's question was more if it's possible to
use some other transport e.g. SCTP, or, in future, QUIC. I
don't think she's asking if that'd be effective or wise, but
just whether or not there's something that limits one (for
now) to only UDP or TCP. (If I've gotten that wrong, I guess
she'll correct me:-)

Cheers,
S.

> If you
> search on TCP congestion control in wireless networks you will find
> lots of material describing solutions to FTP congestion control in
> wireless lossy networks.  We opted to make these solutions deployment
> options. Don Sturek
> 
> 
> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message
> --------From: Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> Date:
> 1/30/18  5:13 AM  (GMT-08:00) To: Mirja Kühlewind
> <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]> Cc: [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail], Alexander
> Pelov <[e-mail]> Subject: Re: [lp-wan]  Mirja Kühlewind's No
> Objection on draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-07: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> Sorry for the slow response, just getting to this now.
> 
> On 24/01/18 18:27, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
>> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for 
>> draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-07: No Objection
>> 
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
>> all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
>> cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
>> 
>> 
>> Please refer to
>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more
>> information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> 
>> 
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
>> here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lpwan-overview/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 
COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> 
What's the relation of this document to draft-ietf-lwig-energy-efficient-08?
> 
> Personally, I've not read that draft 'till now so I guess there's no
> direct relationship:-) I'd say these drafts are complementary
> basically. I don't think this one needs a reference to that one.
> 
>> 
>> Some minor, mostly editorial comments:
>> 
>> 1) While this document provides a good overview, I find section 2
>> more extensive than needed for the gap analysis; on the other hand
>> section 2.2 (NB-IoT) does not really talk about security
>> functions/encryption while the other sections do that.
> 
> Yep, as I understand it, NB-IoT (almost entirely) inherits LTE's 
> security model. Describing enough of LTE security to be meaningful 
> would likely take too much text to be useful. How much LTE stuff to
> include is a general issue with 2.2 that we've struggled with. TBH, I
> don't see us improving that so much that the effort is overall
> worthwhile. (I'll give 2.2 another read over and see if I can find
> any easy clarifications as I handle remaining comments.)
> 
>> 
>> 2) "Text here is largely from [I-D.farrell-lpwan-lora-overview]"
>> and " Text here is largely from [I-D.ratilainen-lpwan-nb-iot]" and
>> so one I would suggest to remove these sentences with references to
>> expired drafts (given the contributions are listed in sec 7
>> again).
> 
> Sure. Done.
> 
>> 
>> 3) In sec 2.2.2 there is this fragment that can potentially be
>> removed: "User plane protocol stack"
> 
> Done.
> 
>> 
>> 4) Section 2.4.2: "The Transport service is based on User Datagram
>> Protocol (UDP) defined in RFC768 or Transmission Control Protocol
>> (TCP) defined in RFC793." Does this mean one can only use UDP or
>> TCP over IPv6 over 6LoWPAN over FAN but no other transport
>> protocols? I assume that's not the case and would recommend to just
>> remove this sentence (and the reference in the table).
> 
> I don't know if there's some reason one cannot use a different 
> transport, but perhaps the Wi-SUN/FAN folks can clarify?
> 
>> 
>> 5) Seems slightly weird to me that TLS is mentioned in a section
>> called "4.1. Naive application of IPv6"
> 
> I think it fits ok with that paragraph.
> 
>> 
>> 6) I guess another challenge regarding security might be to
>> update/upgrade such devices over a low bandwidth network, but that
>> might a topic on its own...
>> 
> 
> Yep, and mentioned by others too. I'll be suggesting adding a 
> sentence pointing at RFC8240 (in a subsequent mail to WG list).
> 
> Cheers, S.
> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ lp-wan mailing list 
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan
> 

-- 
PGP key change time for me.
New-ID 7B172BEA; old-ID 805F8DA2 expires Jan 24 2018.
NewWithOld sigs in keyservers.
Sorry if that mucks something up;-)