Re: [lp-wan] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-07.txt> (LPWAN Overview) to Informational RFC

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephen,

My final comments for the draft, I found a good overview which I suggest to
add,

My comments [cm] and suggestions  [sg],

[cm] IMHO, Rfc4919 is easy to read and I prefer this draft to have similar
structure. Long pages with no sections and subsections makes it difficult
to read or see characteristics. please make some subsections with a number
or with a point.

[Sg] The title should not be in letters, however the draft does not cover
all LPWAN technologies available, so I suggest

[sg] replace title to > Low Power Wide Area Networks technology overview

[Sg] to delete the dollar costs in the draft's body, only in the
introduction we may mention that as to give a feeling of cost, but if we
put per technology, that seems like writing marketing or business
information, and not writing engineering informational.

In Abstract>

Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) are wireless technologies with

characteristics such as large coverage areas, low bandwidth, possibly

very small packet and application layer data sizes and long battery

life operation.



cm> The draft must state exactly the Low Power characteristic as defining
it with wireless wan. IMO we don't use the bandwidth to represent bit rate
while discussing in the layers under ip. Furthermore, some LPWAN use spread
techniques LoRa which are not low BW or not NB.

cm> In page 21 the draft contradicts the low BW by mentioning high BW, but
that is spreading BW not speed.



Old edit> Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) are wireless technologies
with characteristics such as large coverage areas, low bandwidth, possibly
very small packet and application layer data sizes and long battery life
operation.



New edit>

Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) are wireless networks with low power
and long range transmission technologies, with characteristics such as low
transmission bit rate, high receiver sensitivity, possibly very small
packet and application layer data sizes and long battery life operation,
and large number of end devices distributed over large geographical areas
for a low cost.



Add>  Applicability Statement: (add in one section number)



The objective of LPWAN technologies is to achieve a long range with low
power consumption and low cost different from other wireless WAN
technologies for which achieving higher data rate, lower latency and higher
reliability. LPWAN technologies are used in various emerging smart city and
machine-to-machine (M2M) applications like: tracking physical objects,
detecting or monitoring data about environment/industry/system, metering
reporting for water, electricity, etc. Furthermore, in some applications
the end-devices may be dependent or independent within the network, and the
end-devices are either part in the data analysis or just data reporting.
Mostly in LPWAN the end-devices are used as data reporting  with low
processing and the gateways as the access point. Some applications can use
the end-devices as transmitters only without receivers, or with very short
listening periods.





Add>  LPWAN uses star topology to eliminates many overhead associated with
the use of meshing such as forwarding or routing overheads.

SG> Rfc7452 should be referenced because mentions the Architectural
Considerations in Smart Object Networking which is related in covering the
gap for LPWAN.



[cm] the LoRA gateways use IP, but end devices have no.



Sg>delete> As of today, essentially no LPWAN devices have IP capabilities.

Replace> As of today, essentially no LPWAN end-devices have IP capabilities.



[cm] there are redundancy in the draft, needs to be deleted. Example when
draft defines LPWAN, then RoLa is simply defined that it is a LPWAN, we
don't have to repeat LPWAN definition again.another example is repeating
the life of 10 year for each technology, which can be defined once for
LPWAN. However, that life time was not an important characteristic for the
specific technology, so I think we should specify subsections for character.



[Cm] the draft does not mention the MAC mechanisms used for each LPWAN
technologies, which is very important when we want to make IP over LPWAN.
It needs to mention ALOHA and CSMA which are used in LPWAN. I think RoLa
and SIGFox use ALOHA, and NB-IoT uses TDMA.

[cm] as we are in IETF can contact those vendors of these technologies of
LPWAN, we can get the information easily confirmed.



Suggest> each technology within the characteristic section needs to clarify
 the uplink (UL) and downlink (DL) data/control messages or channels, and
symmetrical or/and asymmetric, for each subsection of the following:

-ranges (for rural, urban, they maybe with different ranges)

-band (licensed or unlicensed) and with region/country

-data rate and duty cycle

-channels

-end-devices memory/processing needs

-link budget target

-MAC mechanism used for up and/or down

-Modulation/coding

-max number of devices served

-roaming/handover availability

-localization

-synchronized of synchronized network

-main application other possibility.

-operation





[sg]

Old> section 2.1.1>

LoRaWAN is an ISM-based wireless technology for long-range low-power

low-data-rate applications developed by the LoRa Alliance, a

membership consortium. <https://www.lora-alliance.org/> This draft

is based on version 1.0.2 [LoRaSpec] of the LoRa specification. That

specification is publicly available and has already seen several

deployments across the globe.



New> section 2.1.1>

LoRaWAN is an ISM-based LPWAN developed by the LoRa Alliance, a

membership consortium. <https://www.lora-alliance.org/> This draft

is based on version 1.0.2 [LoRaSpec] of the LoRa specification. That

specification is publicly available and has already seen several

deployments across the globe.



[cm] the RFC7452 is very interesting because it mentions the tricky issue I
mentioned in my previous email for this overview, also theis RFC refered
that some technologies may be rebuild, similar to what I was mentioning in
my email regarding adaptations by both IP protocols and the
under-technologies. I suggest that should be mentioned also in the draft.



[Sg] The LPWAN is used/applied within the IoT and M2M environment, so we
need to consider the recommendations of RFC7452.



[Sg] The gap analysis should include some issues/analysis in RFC7452 (or
reference and point to it), because rfc7452 makes important protocol design
considerations related to LPWAN technologies, also this RFC mentions some
IP challenges for such smart environment.





Section 5> should reference rfc7452 and 8240, because they make important
security considerations related to this draft.



Add>References>



Raza, U., Kulkarni, P., and Sooriyabandara, M., 'Low Power Wide Area
Networks: An Overview', 2017



H. Tschofenig, J. Arkko, D. Thaler, and D. McPherson, 'Architectural
Considerations in Smart Object Networking', RFC7452, Mar 2015


H. Tschofenig, S. Farrell, 'Report from the Internet of Things Software
Update (IoTSU) Workshop 2016', RFC8240, Sep 2017.



Best Regards

AB



On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> Hiya,
>
> On 20/01/18 23:03, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > How are you doing, it is long time from last time we meet in ietf89,
>
> Yes, time flies.
>
> > I
> > thank you for your welcoming. my comments below
>
> No problem.
>
> > but ok, I will do some suggestions in my next message for you,
>
> Grand. I'll respond in detail when you send your suggested text.
>
> S.
> --
> 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;-)
>