Hi Yong-Geun, Sandra, Please see some inline comments, below.
> Dear Sandra. > > Thanks for your comments. > > I agree your comments. At the LP-WAN BoF, I was also there. > > In the 6lo use cases document, we tried to describe the use cases that are > related to IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes. I am not sure > how the current LP-WAN technologies are related to IPv6 and 6lo > technologies. An analysis of IPv6 over LPWAN can be found here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gomez-lpwan-ipv6-analysis-00 (This draft will be updated before Berlin...) There is also a section on the topic here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-minaburo-lp-wan-gap-analysis-01 Sandra's comment touches an important point, that is: which is (or should be) the scope of the "6lo use cases" draft? The "6lo use cases" document may include a wider set of technologies than the current "6lo" ones. Then it would transform into a "6lo" and "lpwan" use cases document. I wonder if this document (currently homed in the 6lo WG) would then potentially focus on work carried out in more than one WG. I personally would have no problem with that, but coordination between the involved WGs would be needed, and it would be good to know the chairs' opinion on this. (Note that an IETF WG focusing on LPWAN does not yet exist, but efforts to create such a WG have already started.) On the other hand, for the most challenged LPWAN setups/technologies, functionality beyond what is currently used in 6lo is actually needed to support IPv6 over LPWAN [draft-gomez-lpwan-ipv6-analysis]. In fact, many LPWANs fall in the challenged networks category [draft-minaburo-lp-wan-gap-analysis]. As of today, the mechanisms for supporting IPv6 over LPWANs are in their early stages in the best case... So today it is already possible to include some example LPWAN technologies and use cases in the document, but we'll have to wait a little bit to see how IPv6 is supported over them. What does the WG think? Thanks! Carles > In the next revision, we will look at the LP-WAN technologies more detail > and try to include the LP-WAN technologies. > > If you have related contents, it is appreciate to help. > > Best regards. > > Yong-Geun. > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Sandra Céspedes U. > <[email protected] >> wrote: > >> Dear Yong-Geun >> >> I have a comment regarding this draft: >> >> It seems to me that all the use cases presented in the document are for >> "short-range" technologies, that would easily follow in the PAN >> category. >> Although most of the current work done in 6lo concentrates in such >> technologies, there is no limitation in the scope that indicates that >> low-power wide area technologies cannot be considered. I'm referring to >> technologies that were discussed during the LP-WAN BOF (they even have a >> shared file with an initial list of technologies in goo.gl/S3uSPU >> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n7cXN4_VuI8imy8MG3-fHjl9FNiNvYfdB4txN4hDQ-w/edit#heading=h.g3u16990965f>). >> >> >> Why aren't we looking into those technologies as 6lo use-cases? I >> suggest >> that if not all the technologies, some examples should relate to LP-WAN >> technologies, since they are also restricted networks (some argue that >> even >> more constrained than Low-PAN technologies) and also need IPv6-over-foo >> definitions. >> >> Looking forward to your opinion. >> >> Regards, >> Sandra Céspedes >> >> >> On 07-04-2016 22:14, Yong-Geun Hong wrote: >> >> Dear Michael. >> >> Thanks for your valuable comments. >> >> I totally agree your comments and it is aligned with other comments in >> the >> 6lo WG meeting today. >> >> I will keep in mind your comments and try to revise the document as you >> pointed. >> >> Best regards. >> >> Yong-Geun. >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Michael Richardson < >> <[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> I scanned the document quickly during the presentation today. >>> >>> It seems like it might be a useful document to have; >>> I'm thinking that 6lowpan maybe already did such a thing? If so, it's >>> old. >>> >>> If the purpose is to market/educate outsiders then I see the point, and >>> let's >>> do that. We regularily don't explain ourselves well enough. This >>> document >>> should be augmented with a set of slides that explain (in pictures) the >>> deployment scenarios indicated. I would find that useful when I >>> explain >>> things to outsiders if I can find pictures and diagrams for >>> technologies >>> which I'm not otherwise intimate with. >>> >>> (If it's just for us, then I don't think it's useful as is) >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works >>> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 6lo mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6lo mailing [email protected]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Sandra L. Céspedes, Ph.D. | Profesora Asistente >> Departamento de IngenierÃa Eléctrica >> Universidad de Chile >> Av. Tupper 2007, Santiago, Chile. 8370451 >> Tel. +56 (2) 29784093 | Of. 504 >> URL: http://www.cec.uchile.cl/~scespedes >> >> >> >> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> >> Virus-free. >> www.avast.com >> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6lo mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
