Re: [lp-wan] I-D Action: draft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis-02.txt

Ana Minaburo <ana@ackl.io> Wed, 11 January 2017 09:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ana@ackl.io>
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 922F2129AD5 for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:35:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 CBJ8YrIPvZPO for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:35:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (relay4-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D5C9129AC8 for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:35:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mfilter49-d.gandi.net (mfilter49-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.180]) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2A8417252F; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:35:15 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter49-d.gandi.net
Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([IPv6:::ffff:217.70.183.196]) by mfilter49-d.gandi.net (mfilter49-d.gandi.net [::ffff:10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yDHVuDnVR_UN; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:35:13 +0100 (CET)
X-Originating-IP: 192.44.77.204
Received: from [192.168.10.104] (nat-asr-incub-b204.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [192.44.77.204]) (Authenticated sender: ana@ackl.io) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 193991724FA; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:35:12 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9F18753F-0A2A-4B5E-A6D7-C237725FB7F5"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Ana Minaburo <ana@ackl.io>
In-Reply-To: <f5c992d3-0a66-7598-53ab-c0cdfb95c7dd@unamur.be>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:35:11 +0100
Message-Id: <729E8828-C85F-47B3-B311-AB58EF4A2FC0@ackl.io>
References: <147686452963.8900.13478184401101239814.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <f5c992d3-0a66-7598-53ab-c0cdfb95c7dd@unamur.be>
To: "Schumacher L." <laurent.schumacher@unamur.be>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lp-wan/phL6kJUE-HFAZywONEmUaZqZniI>
Cc: lp-wan <lp-wan@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lp-wan] I-D Action: draft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis-02.txt
X-BeenThere: lp-wan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:35:20 -0000

Hello,

thanks you for your modifications, I will do the necessary to upload them, as you know my draft as it is will not be published, it will be part of the draft:
draft-farrell-lpwan-overview-02 and as soon as I remember they have not include the table, put we can discuss about having it in this draft.

Thanks
Ana


> On 09 Jan 2017, at 13:10, Schumacher L. <laurent.schumacher@unamur.be> wrote:
> 
> Dear Ana Minaburo,
> 
> Would it make sense to complement the table in Annex A of the IETF draft under reference with carrier band information as follows:
> 
>    +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+--------+
>    | Technology  | Range         | Band              | Throughput    |MAC MTU |
>    +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+--------+
>    | LoRa        |2-5 km urban   | ISM               | 0.3 to        | 256 B  |
>    |             |<15 km suburban| EU: 433, 868 MHz  | 50 kbps       |        |
>    |             |               | US: 915 MHz       |               |        |
>    +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+--------+
>    | NB-IoT   *  | <15 km        | Licensed bands ;  | up:   60 kbps | >1000B |
>    |             |               | Standalone:       | down: 30 kbps |        |
>    |             |               | refarmed GSM band |               |        |
>    +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+--------+
>    | SIGFOX      | 10 km urban   | ISM               | up:100/600 bps| 12/    |
>    |             | 50 km rural   | EU: 868 MHz       | down: 600 bps | 8 B    |
>    +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+--------+
>    |IEEE802.15.4g| 2-3 km LoS    | EU: 870-876 MHz   | 4.8 kbps to   | 2047 B |
>    |SUN          |               |                   | 800 kbps      |        |
>    +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+--------+
>    |IEEE802.15.4k| < 20 km LoS   | JP: 920-928 MHz   | 1.5 bps to    | 16/24/ |
>    |LECIM        | < 5 km NoLoS  |                   | 128 kbps      | 32 B   |
>    +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+--------+
>    |RPMA         | 65 km LoS     | ISM               | up: 624kbps   | 64 B   |
>    |             | 20 km NoLoS   | 2.4 GHz           | down: 156kbps |        |
>    |             |               |                   | mob: 2kbps    |        |
>    +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+--------+
>    |DASH-7       | 2 km          | ISM               | 9 kbps        | 256 B  |
>    |             |               | EU: 433 MHz       | 55.55 kbps    |        |
>    |             |               |                   | 166.66 kbps   |        |
>    +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+--------+
>    |Weightless-w | 5 km urban    | TV bands          | 1 kbps to     |min 10 B|
>    |             |               |                   | 10 Mbps       |        |
>    +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+--------+
>    |Weightless-n |<5 km urban    | ISM               | 30 kbps to    |max 20 B|
>    |             |<30 km suburban| EU: 868 MHz       | 100kbps       |        |
>    +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+--------+
>    |Weightless-p | > 2 km urban  |                   | up to 100kbps |        |
>    +-------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+--------+
> 
> In addition, because the duty cycle is having a significant incidence on the applicability of 6LoWPAN mechanisms to LPWAN technologies, along with the adaptive data rate and the limited payload size, wouldn't it make sense to mention the duty cycle as well?
> 
> Best regards,
> LS
> 
> Le 19/10/16 à 10:08, internet-drafts@ietf.org <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org> a écrit :
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>> 
>> 
>>         Title           : LPWAN Survey and GAP Analysis
>>         Authors         : Ana Minaburo
>>                           Carles Gomez
>>                           Laurent Toutain
>>                           Josep PAradells
>>                           Jon Crowcroft
>> 	Filename        : draft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis-02.txt
>> 	Pages           : 17
>> 	Date            : 2016-10-19
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>    Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) are technologies covering
>>    different applications based on long range, low bandwidth and low
>>    power operation.  The use of IETF protocols in the LPWAN technologies
>>    should contribute to the deployment of a wide number of applications
>>    in an open and standard environment where actual devices using LPWAN
>>    technologies will be able to communicate.  This document makes a
>>    survey of the principal characteristics of these technologies and
>>    provides the gaps for the integration on the IETF protocol stack.
>> 
>> 
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis/>
>> 
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis-02 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis-02>
>> 
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis-02 <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis-02>
>> 
>> 
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>> 
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org <mailto:I-D-Announce@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce>
>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html <http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html>
>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt>
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> <gdnoibfkpkognhgj.png>
> Laurent SCHUMACHER
> Professeur
> Faculté d'Informatique
> 
> T. +32 (0)81 724 980
> F. +32 (0)81 724 967
> laurent.schumacher@ieee.org <mailto:laurent.schumacher@ieee.org>
> http://www.unamur.be/universite/personnes/page_view/01005249/ <http://www.unamur.be/universite/personnes/page_view/01005249/>
> http://be.linkedin.com/pub/laurent-schumacher/0/32b/7b7 <http://be.linkedin.com/pub/laurent-schumacher/0/32b/7b7>
> Université de Namur ASBL
> Rue de Bruxelles 61 - 5000 Namur
> Let’s respect the environment together.
> Only print this message if necessary!