Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan-13

Olivier Gimenez <ogimenez@semtech.com> Mon, 04 January 2021 11:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ogimenez@semtech.com>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E32B63A0C03; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 03:03:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.19
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=semtech.com
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 OMO04cvNfME5; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 03:03:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.bemta23.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta23.messagelabs.com [67.219.246.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FA4E3A0C01; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 03:03:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=semtech.com; s=k1; t=1609758191; i=@semtech.com; bh=996DLok2yIhbRZShsjvFPkW94qgcHbAaNkJVh48EuL0=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=TFWugVVlVDG/W91Mk1sMfSzkBZJT3Mau08X9vs3YxeXRgg4qVnC+dsmb+rqI+tvUv 0pHq3J9OZNsoEgAFWCrzWuJ5SnNz/sVB67DGMMxf6gG7RHymYXD9l/A/weCmNPFkmN xT56XaEXmpsBpM6Al+LkBFS0MvOXXYeZ5XAn0uR+qvwCMI1pIOeE/OB8gpEKKsP38t M7Jq/lAD0ysZeKlQkGAerE8S4oxCCcweggKLkbtggVez9kFjVxWSx08c3y3CRYww4v jqQKoTeEOvr+QXGwNwvsLAJAoXEDjzQJG5Lu5pxN+2SvvzHlJwO0c16tOfto2PNwXT /d+957LS5y9tg==
Received: from [100.112.3.43] (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256 bits)) by server-5.bemta.az-b.us-east-1.aws.symcld.net id 57/F0-54546-FE5F2FF5; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 11:03:11 +0000
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpjk+JIrShJLcpLzFFi42LxUPvxWPf910/ xBu8bJS1+37vPbPHz3k5Wizez7C1m7VnE4sDisWBTqceSJT+ZApiiWDPzkvIrElgzZn/4wFww p6Ti5trpjA2MZ4u6GDk5hATuM0rMWWTbxcgFZD9nlFi0biErhLODUeJ0+3VGkCo2AR2J/89ns YLYIgJeEu9n7QErYhboY5S48vwZWEJYwFfi7s0GJogiP4nHx7qB4hxAtpFE60ZTkDCLgIpE64 eFzCA2r4CVxNvO1+wQV7hInDx5FGwMp4CrRMfsTrAaRgExie+n1oCNZBYQl7j1ZD6YLSEgILF kz3lmCFtU4uXjf2D3SAhMY5aY1bmEHSLBLzHv8HVWCFtRomPSBDaIQYkSL15/ZoE4QlDi5Mwn LBBHKEq0TlvIPIFRfBaSfbOQtMxC0jIL6DVmAU2J9bv0IUoUJaZ0P2SHsDUkWufMZUcWX8DIv orRLKkoMz2jJDcxM0fX0MBA19DQSNcAxNJLrNJN0ist1k1NLC7RNdRLLC/WK67MTc5J0ctLLd nECIz0lAKGlB2Md19/0DvEKMnBpCTK63PhU7wQX1J+SmVGYnFGfFFpTmrxIUYZDg4lCV52YOo QEixKTU+tSMvMASYdmLQEB4+SCK8XSJq3uCAxtzgzHSJ1itGbY8LLuYuYOQ4enQck3/1cDCQ/ rloCJL+DySNzly5iFmLJy89LlRLn3foFaIQAyIiM0jy4BbDkeYlRVkqYl5GBgUGIpyC1KDezB FX+FaM4B6OSMK8iyCE8mXklcHe8AjqRCehEscT3ICeWJCKkpBqYNnSIa3L3ZDzZwlA5s7ay6Y Kk8BX55W27LHXEzP4qHWrZLZsWEdByKcZi87xXbDnqQauv51hMzFlVNO/u3+/Bvb5hZo/dYrY udBUQsNLd2jdF/4FLyRJJzYlpPVG7rrSfuLDc1054hfL59u/Gpw6W/c2wFl9txZD839lrY/nj sltaUdqqR6u+t0ht/hU1f5Og9uI1RgcOKt5kFpfanrz75/ymSYfWXZnCuWNN026hlRYmE25ZL YmQ3Lg0RHph7NTthW+/8UtUymv/4zn2cnLhnHffNrc1vuFfff2sR6KuU0Re05lPOrWaL9M/La j7eF/e5/I+h+NTd+yraGjkKNlw/POPl7n3uQ8p7VPY/Pn6WSWW4oxEQy3mouJEAEXBtgUZBAA A
X-Env-Sender: ogimenez@semtech.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-20.tower-394.messagelabs.com!1609758191!3380470!1
X-Originating-IP: [72.38.248.227]
X-SYMC-ESS-Client-Auth: outbound-route-from=pass
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 9.60.3; banners=semtech.com,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 15336 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2021 11:03:11 -0000
Received: from s72-38-248-227.static.datacom.cgocable.net (HELO ca01exedge1.semnet.dom) (72.38.248.227) by server-20.tower-394.messagelabs.com with ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 encrypted SMTP; 4 Jan 2021 11:03:11 -0000
Received: from ca01mail2.semnet.dom (10.2.50.41) by ca01exedge1.semnet.dom (10.2.110.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.1034.26; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 06:02:30 -0500
Received: from ca01mail2.semnet.dom (10.2.50.41) by ca01mail2.semnet.dom (10.2.50.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1034.26; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 06:03:09 -0500
Received: from ca01mail2.semnet.dom ([fe80::fdc8:c457:b09e:605d]) by ca01mail2.semnet.dom ([fe80::fdc8:c457:b09e:605d%22]) with mapi id 15.01.1034.026; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 06:03:09 -0500
From: Olivier Gimenez <ogimenez@semtech.com>
To: Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>, "tsv-art@ietf.org" <tsv-art@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan.all@ietf.org>, "lp-wan@ietf.org" <lp-wan@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan-13
Thread-Index: AQHWsv6RFz84QXFiwk6iz9r5PamapKoXpssw
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 11:03:09 +0000
Message-ID: <aea76ebc272c4543a3ea642d05bfddc0@semtech.com>
References: <160453093903.27540.12938488934743169751@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <160453093903.27540.12938488934743169751@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-dg-ref: PG1ldGE+PGF0IG5tPSJib2R5Lmh0bWwiIHA9ImM6XHVzZXJzXG9naW1lbmV6XGFwcGRhdGFccm9hbWluZ1wwOWQ4NDliNi0zMmQzLTRhNDAtODVlZS02Yjg0YmEyOWUzNWJcbXNnc1xtc2ctNmJiMmY5ODAtNGU3Yy0xMWViLWI3ODQtZTRiMzE4NjYzZWUxXGFtZS10ZXN0XDZiYjJmOTgxLTRlN2MtMTFlYi1iNzg0LWU0YjMxODY2M2VlMWJvZHkuaHRtbCIgc3o9IjczNzAiIHQ9IjEzMjU0MjMxNzg2NTg4MDAwOSIgaD0iVktOMVFnRFNYck4xWGdqdFQ1NjdDUXM4T0lBPSIgaWQ9IiIgYmw9IjAiIGJvPSIxIi8+PC9tZXRhPg==
x-dg-rorf: true
x-originating-ip: [10.160.88.128]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_aea76ebc272c4543a3ea642d05bfddc0semtechcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/wleEOdNzDyXggSa5U4ngwoSXVz0>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan-13
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2021 11:03:20 -0000

Hi Ian,



Thank you for your review. I updated the document with you suggestions, please see this commit<https://github.com/Acklio/schc-over-lorawan/commit/acb2abb9f2b681d20f02d8ed643d01b7d0ff918b>8b>.

I will gave another look at RFC8724 cross referencing. Regarding the reference to RFC8376, it does not detail LoRaWAN message types, so I added a reference to the LoRaWAN specification





I wish you all the best for 2021



Best regards

Olivier



> -----Original Message-----

> From: Ian Swett via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>

> Sent: 05 November 2020 00:02

> To: tsv-art@ietf.org

> Cc: last-call@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan.all@ietf.org; lp-

> wan@ietf.org

> Subject: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan-13

>

> Warning - External Email

> ________________________________

>

> Reviewer: Ian Swett

> Review result: Ready with Nits

>

> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's

> ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written

> primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's

> authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF

> discussion list for information.

>

> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review

> as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-<mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>

> art@ietf.org<mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org> if you reply to or forward this review.

>

> This document looked to be in good shape, but I'm quite unfamiliar with SCHC,

> so hopefully others who are have also reviewed this.

>

> An overall comment is that this document could use more cross-refs to specific

> sections of RFC8724

>

> Some nits below:

>

> Section 2

>

>    o  SCHC gateway: It corresponds to the LoRaWAN Application Server.

>       It manages translation between IPv6 network and the Network

>       Gateway (LoRaWAN Network Server).

>

>   Nit: "It corresponds to" seems unnecessary and isn't parallel with other

>   definitions.  How about: "The LoRaWAN Application Server that manages ..."?

>

> Section 4.3

>

>    As SCHC defines its own acknowledgment mechanisms, SCHC does not

>    require to use LoRaWAN Confirmed frames.

>

>   This sentence is awkward.  Do you mean ", SCHC does not require the use of

>   LoRaWAN Confirmed Frames".

>

>   Also, it may be worth adding cross-references to the appropriate section of

>   RFC8376 for all of these frame types?

>

> Section 5.1

>    A fragmented datagram with application payload transferred from

>    device to Network Gateway, is called uplink fragmented datagram.  It

>

>   "Is called an uplink fragmented datagram."?

>



To view our privacy policy, including the types of personal information we collect, process and share, and the rights and options you have in this respect, see www.semtech.com/legal.