[Schc] Comments on draft-barthel-schc-oam-schc-03

[Ana Minaburo <[e-mail]>]

Dear Laurent and Dominique,
I've read your draft. Here, you will find some comments and open questions
to discuss.

1. This draft gives new features that augment SCHC.
- It creates two new MO/CDA
- Creates a new item in the Rule to achieve an operation, called ACTION

2. It also gives some feathery strategies for compressing the Type and Code
of the ICMPv6 header fields.
- In section 4.2.1, when introducing the example, you want to define
something different using only the RuleID. Please let me know if I need to
correct something.
But here we can discuss some points:
What is the idea of creating a Rule per Type or doing a general Rule for
all Types?
Do you mean a RuleID format that implicitly adds the type/code?
This is very interesting, but I think we need to open a new discussion
about it.

4. Also, when you describe Ping, you only describe the use for LPWAN, and I
think you need to open the use of Ping to all networks—perhaps giving one
special section to LPWAN.

5. Using the proxy.
How is the security assured here? How does the proxy know the device is
alive?
You need to keep the trust between the proxy and the device by doing some
control instances and keeping this in the Rule.
 I think that as you have defined it, you identify which Rule may accept
the ACTION. That identifies the Rule and allows the proxy to answer a
request, avoiding a waste of resources for an LPWAN device. The
device executes a control update and releases the constraint network for
ICMP traffic.

6. To be explicit, you must
=> separate ICMPv6 compression from Ping usage. Make two separate parts of
your draft.
=> Change the title to only ICMPv6, which could represent your work. OAM
also implies traceroute, mtrace, BFD, IPPM, MPLS-TP, and SNMP.
=> Add a new section to update RFC8724 with the two MO/CDA dedicated to
ICMP and Actions
=> Change the Introduction. By omitting OAM.

Ana