Re: [lp-wan] Architecture

[Laurent Toutain <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bob,

Sorry not to mention IP in my mail, but yes the architecture must cover
that. It could be a limit to the use of RFC9039, the IP addresses are not
taken into account.

Laurent

On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 1:12 PM Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> WRT architecture:
>
> I mentioned so months ago that the architecture does not properly
> represent security layers like ESP where the transport is within the
> security wrapper and SCHC for it would be part of the security negotiation
> as in
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mglt-ipsecme-ikev2-diet-esp-extension/
>
> Further for cases where the security layer is general having SCHC as the
> Next Header for transport layer compression as I show in:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moskowitz-lpwan-ipnumber/
>
> Currently I have no conflict against the lpwan session and would
> contribute on the architecture subject.
>
> Bob
>
> On 6/28/22 03:52, Laurent Toutain wrote:
>
> Dear lpwaner,
>
> I thought we had an interim this afternoon, but the next meeting is in
> Philly. I would like to discuss on the architecture and the YANG data model.
>
> Current data model is limited to RFC 8724 and RFC8824 and can be easily
> augmented for compound Ack and OAM. What is missing is how to manage the
> rules. In openSCHC set of rules are assigned to a device and there is a
> single core SCHC.
>
> Carles raised the need to study a more generic approach for mesh network
> where the notion of device and SCHC core do not exists anymore and rules
> are more an association between a device and a core. This may be solved by
> identifying the set of rules by a device ID and a core ID.
>
> RFC 9039 (thanks to Alex for the ref) defines a way to build URN that can
> be used has identifier. We can use 2 URN to identify a set of rules. But
> that ASCII characters and it is not a compact representation.
>
> So we have the current YANG data model that defines a set of rules that
> will be augmented with a set of rule ID pointing both ends IDs (one of them
> can be none for a star topology and both of them for PPP).
>
> In my opinion, we should specify on the architecture document, a more
> generic model covering PPP, star and mesh and also more precisely the
> interaction between them. From that, we will be able to define an
> augmentation of the basic data model.
>
> The way we include a mesh model with SCHC can be an interesting thing to
> investigate during the hackathon.
>
> See you,
>
> Laurent
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lp-wan mailing [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan
>
>
>