Re: [lp-wan] draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-nbiot-12

[Edgar Ramos <[e-mail]>]

May be we can directly refer to  protocol stack “options” , although the placing of the entities is also discussed, but may be we can just leave it in that level.

Br

Edgar

From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, 4 November 2022 14.49
To: Edgar Ramos <[e-mail]>; Ana Minaburo <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; lp-wan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-nbiot-12

Edgar,

Fair enough.

As it is not really the IETF mission to defines scenarios for 3GPP architectures, should we try to find another word than "architectures" ? You have noticed that some of my IESG colleagues do not want to overstep on 3GPP.

Regards

-éric

From: Edgar Ramos <edgar.ramos=[e-mail]<mailto:edgar.ramos=[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday, 4 November 2022 at 13:16
To: Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Ana Minaburo <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, lp-wan <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-nbiot-12

Thanks Eric for your comments. With respect to the last suggestion, the actual text has to do with the protocol architecture of the radio bearer and not a use case.
Meaning that they have to be supported by the radio stack and therefore the radio modems directly. So I don’t see them as a use case.

Br

Edgar

From: lp-wan <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
Sent: Friday, 4 November 2022 12.59
To: Ana Minaburo <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; lp-wan <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [lp-wan] draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-nbiot-12

Ana,

Thank you. May I suggest using the following text for the abstract:

   This document describes Static Context Header Compression and
   Fragmentation (SCHC) specifications, RFC 8724 and RFC 8824, combination with the
   3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) and the Narrowband Internet
   of Things (NB-IoT).
.

   This document has two parts.  One normative to specify the use of
   SCHC over NB-IoT.  And one informational, which recommends some
   SCHC parameters if 3GPP wanted to use SCHC inside their NB-IoT architecture.

Also, at the end of the first paragraph of section 1, replace 'architectures' by 'use cases' ?

Regards

-éric


From: Ana Minaburo <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, 2 November 2022 at 19:32
To: Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, lp-wan <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-nbiot-12

Hello,
Thanks for your input,
Here you will find the first version attached to this message, please see if this could work better.
I'll solve the cross references of chapter 5.

Ana

On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 2:52 PM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Ana,

Thanks for your email and for your suggestion. You can try your new structure.

The abstract must also be rewritten to soften the recommendation to 3GPP, i.e.,

"     The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)
   and the Narrowband Internet of Things (NB-IoT) architectures may
   adopt SCHC to improve their capacities.
"
The 'improve their capacities' is somehow arrogant from the IETF ;-)

The abstract should also be clear about having 2 parts one normative to "specify the use of SCHC over NB-IOT " and one informative to "recommend some values if 3GPP wants to use the SCHC techniques" or something similar

-éric

From: Ana Minaburo <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, 2 November 2022 at 14:39
To: Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: lp-wan <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-nbiot-12

Dear Eric and chairs,

I've almost finished with all the comments from the IESG, but there is one point that I would like to discuss before sending my last version.

The discussion is about the informative/normative parts of the document and how to make that clear.

There are two inputs about this clarification. The Tsvart review by Spencer Dawkins proposes including a meta-index to explain the draft's structure. On the other hand, Lars Eggert outright put the informative part in the appendix, which will break the draft's structure.

In this order, I propose to create two significant sections, one normative and the other informative, with the titles: Normative Part;  Informative Part. This change implies inversing the order of section 5 as it is written but is light enough to do.

What do you think?

Thanks
Ana