Re: [lp-wan] Focused Scope for LPWAN WG at Berlin

[Thomas Watteyne <[e-mail]>]

Pascal, all,

[I'm catching up on e-mail, and I see there is a lot of traffic going
already, so please bare with me as I process e-mails in chronological
order.]

I agree with your analysis of how the LPWAN BoF went in B-A. The 3
technologies you list are IMO, the right ones to start with.

My 2c,

Thomas

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello Thomas:
>
>
>
> The sense of the room and the talks in the corridors made very clear (to
> me) that there were elephants (and maybe one mammoth) in the room. At the
> top of the rumor, we found LoRa, SigFox and 802.15.4g. To progress, we need
> contacts (cross participation, intent messaging from responsible entities),
> we must identify deliverables that make sense for the IETF (feasibility in
> due time), and critical mass of people (we seem to have it for identified
> candidate items).
>
>
>
> My perception so far:
>
>
>
> -        LoRa: we have an organization to talk to, LoRaWAN; we have not
> determined yet if and on which topic there is a shared desire to get work
> done at the IETF
>
> -        802.15.4g: we also have a clear partner organization, and we are
> used to work together. What is less clear is the issues that this
> technology has in common with other LPWA networks, and which PHYs would be
> considered
>
> -        SigFox: we found a common interest, but the exact topics need to
> be refined before Berlin. It is unclear (to me) if we have a peer
> organization to talk to and how the adoption of IETF work will happen.
>
>
>
> There is also the question of whether the work we do would be of interest
> for NB-IOT: there was little hope that a consistent sense would emerge
> between now and Berlin that NB-IOT is willing to consider adopting, say, a
> new compression technique as an update/replacement to ROHC.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
>
> *From:* lp-wan [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Thomas
> Watteyne
> *Sent:* mardi 19 avril 2016 09:37
> *To:* Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Ana Minaburo <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [lp-wan] Focused Scope for LPWAN WG at Berlin
>
>
>
> I believe the BoF at Buenos Aires indicated work needs to be done in the
> area of LPWAN at the IETF.
>
>
>
> Most of the discussion in Buenos Aires was about the technology that was
> going to be addressed; that discussion is missing from the initial e-mail
> in this thread.
>
>
>
> There was a clear consensus from the room to narrow the scope of LPWAN to
> 2-3 long-range technologies. There were some remarks about whether this was
> the LPWAN group pushing new technology, or whether there was pull from the
> entities defining that technology. Since then, representatives of companies
> working on SIGFOX and IEEE802.15.4g technology spoke up, expressing clear
> interest for the solutions LPWAN could come up with. There may be others
> speaking up.
>
>
>
> So I believe we have our 2-3 technologies, and I strongly suggest the
> LPWAN group narrows its scope to those as an initial set. Please note that
> a IEEE802.15.4g network is not per-se single hop, so that "feature" of
> LPWAN should be lifted.
>
>
>
> My 2c.
>
>
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Ana,
>
>
>
> I would focus on the use of IPv6 over these low power wide area networks.
>
>
>
> Device management approaches, OMA LWM2M, COMI/COOL or others, would work
> over these radio technologies.
>
>
>
> For security I haven’t seen a document that convinced me that some work is
> needed.
>
>
>
> Ciao
>
> Hannes
>
>
>
> *From:* lp-wan [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Ana
> Minaburo
> *Sent:* 18 April 2016 23:03
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [lp-wan] Focused Scope for LPWAN WG at Berlin
>
>
>
> Hello again,
>
>
>
> Well in this message I would like to discuss the scope of the WG. We need
> to define the focused gaps we want to work in. Let's agree about which are
> the subjects we want to study,
>
>
>
> I think the following points are vey important in order to create the WG,
> please tell me which other you think we need to add.
>
>
>
>
>
> 1. IPv6
>
> draft-gomez-lpwan-ipv6-analysis-00
>
> IP End to End Communication
>
> IPv6 MTU requires fragmentation
>
> ND will be configured in advanced
>
>
>
> 2. Header Compression
>
> draft-toutain-lp-wan-compression-context-00
>
> New Mechanism adapted to challenged networks
>
>
>
> 3.  Security
>
> Personal information need to be secured,
>
>
>
> 4. Management
>
> draft-pelov-core-cosol-01
>
> draft-veillette-core-cool-01
>
> draft-somaraju-core-sid-00
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Ana
>
>
>
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the
> contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the
> information in any medium. Thank you.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lp-wan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> _______________________________________
>
>
>
> Thomas Watteyne, PhD
>
> Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria
>
> Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
>
> Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
>
> Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH
>
>
>
> www.thomaswatteyne.com
>
> _______________________________________
>



-- 
_______________________________________

Thomas Watteyne, PhD
Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria
Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH

www.thomaswatteyne.com
_______________________________________