[lp-wan] SCHC Yang module review
dominique.barthel@orange.com Mon, 13 December 2021 14:40 UTC
Return-Path: <dominique.barthel@orange.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 7D9053A00E5
for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 06:40:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001,
UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
header.d=orange.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44])
by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 2WKs3YCtbY79 for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Mon, 13 Dec 2021 06:40:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.70.35])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B61BC3A00E0
for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 06:40:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfednr04.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.68])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by opfednr27.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTPS id 4JCPLD5gpQz4wlM;
Mon, 13 Dec 2021 15:40:04 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com;
s=ORANGE001; t=1639406404;
bh=kqJcvc45st5oAWnoPibjO6nBAt8PMePLlgx9DOEn8oQ=;
h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version;
b=WI5XlVBtx5eWolHyV3V/yAndFgM6GaJxTVvDcZ9whXYyNHyQGsmvTh34zFg5TGKkT
qaftp4j8BnBg6GI55HV+IT6vLcSsTh8t8y64Bad0tNi9U7a6UtNZQdRJ9RHxShlvnK
71+e//KymWWT543dQ+eOae0ucuOq1/Z727zxgKleelL4RiADeV86a8lIxz7b4zWjKx
u4gLCTLcypcgvXbmv44QN5LGPNX9zTrTiqKCgdNdI7tGbT7/CN62XCy8PJcuEw6VsG
zyCrkezD11cL9xG8zRcwCk9ZwjWKJ/4ovrxDECuKMKat626CLuyvJgG+qh7ByrI1Mm
UlrA/1evKLKpg==
From: <dominique.barthel@orange.com>
To: "lp-wan@ietf.org" <lp-wan@ietf.org>
CC: Laurent Toutain <laurent.toutain@imt-atlantique.fr>
Thread-Topic: SCHC Yang module review
Thread-Index: AQHX8Cg+hceeraD+WEiBxxt8+NjKFQ==
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:40:04 +0000
Message-ID: <5085_1639406404_61B75B44_5085_300_1_965452182f004b859aecc87e522fdd41@orange.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.115.26.52]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_965452182f004b859aecc87e522fdd41orangecom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lp-wan/ZtQMtAaONQZMjTy4d1BqMT0wrBs>
Subject: [lp-wan] SCHC Yang module review
X-BeenThere: lp-wan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:40:12 -0000
Dear LPWAN WG, Following our interim meeting last week, I gave a look at the current SCHC Yang model with respect to RFC 8724 Appendix D. Here are my comments: - the fragmentation-content grouping describes all the parameters needed by any of the fragmentation modes. It could be more specific as to which are mandatory for each mode, and which are not required (irrelevant) for each mode (e.g. Retransmission Timer or MAX_ACK_REQUESTS in No-ACK mode). This might help catching errors early. - the support for interleaved fragmented packet transmission is not described in the yang model. Do we need it? The DTag size (T) is an indication that interleaving might be supported or not, but a profile might want to specify e.g. that interleaving 3 packets is mandatory, while T==2 says that up to 4 packets could be interleaved. - similarly, the "lifetime of DTag at the receiver" is not in the Yang model. Shall it be? Or is it part of a priori knowledge from the profile? - Appendix D says that a profile, if Ack-on-Error is used, must define "if the penultimate tile of a SCHC Packet is of the regular size only or if it can also be one L2 Word shorter". I haven't found such information in the Yang model. Shall it be? Or is it part of a priori knowledge from the profile? I would assume that this would depend on the tile size, therefore vary by rule, therefore should be in the Yang model. - I'm unclear that ack-behavior in the Yang model captures the intention of RFC8724. The description of ack-behavior-after-All0 says that an ACK is expected after an All-0, and the description of ack-behavior-after-All1 says that an ACK is expected after an All-1, but the two are not exclusive, while ack-behavior cannot be equal to both. Likewise ack-behavior-always is described like an ACK is expected after every fragment, I think it wanted to say after every window. These pertain to different fragmentation modes (Ack-on-Error and Ack-Always). - WINDOW_SIZE [RFC8724] is incorrectly described as maximum-window-size (Yang model). The window_size is the max tile index + 1, while the max window size is 2^M-1 - typo in the description : fcn-size is M, not N There are another few features I'm unsure about, I'm still learning Yang. I think a little more work is needed on the SCHC Yang module. Best regards Dominique _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
- [lp-wan] SCHC Yang module review dominique.barthel
- Re: [lp-wan] SCHC Yang module review Laurent Toutain