Re: [6lo] SCHC HC over IEEE 802.15.4: 1. Generic vs IEEE 802.15.4-specific document
Hi Michael, Thanks for your comments. Please find below my inline responses: On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 at 17:25, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Carles Gomez Montenegro wrote: > > 1. Generic vs IEEE 802.15.4-specific document > > ... > > > We (authors) followed the current IEEE 802.15.4-specific approach as > it > > seemed more straightforward, and focusing on IEEE 802.15.4 entailed > > interesting opportunities. Coincidentally, this approach is similar > to > > Are you writing to enable SCHC over *802.15.4* radios, or any network which > happens to use 6lo compression techniques? e.g. DECT, G.99, PLC, ?? > [Carles] Well, the original (and current) focus of this draft was using SCHC (header compression part only) over IEEE 802.15.4 networks. > Do you expect SCHC frames to co-exist with 6lo frames? > (It sounds like it uses 6lo code pages, etc) > > [Carles] Yes, we understand that such coexistence might be needed in some environments. To avoid coexistence issues, we plan to request one (now two) 6LoWPAN Dispatch Type bit pattern(s). > > - The document uses only the SCHC header compression component (i.e., > > 6LoWPAN/6lo functionality is used for fragmentation). > > > Thoughts? Would you have any particular preference on this matter? > > i think the answer should be driven by input from those who might want to > use > this on other media. What do they want, if anything. > > [Carles] I agree! Thanks, Carles (as WG participant) > > -- > Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) >Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > > > ___ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
Re: [6lo] SCHC HC over IEEE 802.15.4: 1. Generic vs IEEE 802.15.4-specific document
Hello Pascal, Thanks for your message. Sure, let's talk about it at IETF 117! Cheers, Carles (as WG participant) On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 at 13:21, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Hello Carles: > > I have an item (against the architecture) about the information that SCHC > needs in the packets (some of which being implicit could be elided) > > My bottom line is that once we have that we should be able to define the > use cases for which a separate spec is desirable vs on that covers multiple > L2s. > > Same as for IPv6 over foo I guess… > > Let’s talk in SF! > > > Regards, > > Pascal > > Le 13 juil. 2023 à 11:35, Carles Gomez Montenegro > a écrit : > > > Dear 6lo WG, > > We would like to receive feedback about two potential discussion items > regarding the document on transmission of SCHC-compressed packets over IEEE > 802.15.4 networks [1]. We will send one separate message for each item. > > 1. Generic vs IEEE 802.15.4-specific document > > One question that has been raised on occasion is whether the document > should be written specifically to enable the use of SCHC header compression > over IEEE 802.15.4 networks (i.e., the current approach) or in a generic > way, independent of a specific underlying technology. > > We (authors) followed the current IEEE 802.15.4-specific approach as it > seemed more straightforward, and focusing on IEEE 802.15.4 entailed > interesting opportunities. Coincidentally, this approach is similar to the > original 6LoWPAN approach, which was designed to enable IPv6 over, mostly, > IEEE 802.15.4. 6LoWPAN has been reused/adapted in 6lo to enable IPv6 over > several other technologies, by means of a technology-specific document for > each technology. Perhaps a similar approach could be followed if there is > interest to enable the use of SCHC header compression over other > technologies. > > Notes: > > - If we write a generic document, there will still need to be a > technology-specific document for each intended underlying technology. > > - The document uses only the SCHC header compression component (i.e., > 6LoWPAN/6lo functionality is used for fragmentation). > > Thoughts? Would you have any particular preference on this matter? > > Thanks, > > Carles and Ana (document authors) > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-schc-15dot4/ > ___ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > > ___ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
Re: [6lo] SCHC HC over IEEE 802.15.4: 1. Generic vs IEEE 802.15.4-specific document
Carles Gomez Montenegro wrote: > 1. Generic vs IEEE 802.15.4-specific document ... > We (authors) followed the current IEEE 802.15.4-specific approach as it > seemed more straightforward, and focusing on IEEE 802.15.4 entailed > interesting opportunities. Coincidentally, this approach is similar to Are you writing to enable SCHC over *802.15.4* radios, or any network which happens to use 6lo compression techniques? e.g. DECT, G.99, PLC, ?? Do you expect SCHC frames to co-exist with 6lo frames? (It sounds like it uses 6lo code pages, etc) > - The document uses only the SCHC header compression component (i.e., > 6LoWPAN/6lo functionality is used for fragmentation). > Thoughts? Would you have any particular preference on this matter? i think the answer should be driven by input from those who might want to use this on other media. What do they want, if anything. -- Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
Re: [6lo] SCHC HC over IEEE 802.15.4: 1. Generic vs IEEE 802.15.4-specific document
Hello Carles: I have an item (against the architecture) about the information that SCHC needs in the packets (some of which being implicit could be elided) My bottom line is that once we have that we should be able to define the use cases for which a separate spec is desirable vs on that covers multiple L2s. Same as for IPv6 over foo I guess… Let’s talk in SF! Regards, Pascal Le 13 juil. 2023 à 11:35, Carles Gomez Montenegro a écrit : Dear 6lo WG, We would like to receive feedback about two potential discussion items regarding the document on transmission of SCHC-compressed packets over IEEE 802.15.4 networks [1]. We will send one separate message for each item. 1. Generic vs IEEE 802.15.4-specific document One question that has been raised on occasion is whether the document should be written specifically to enable the use of SCHC header compression over IEEE 802.15.4 networks (i.e., the current approach) or in a generic way, independent of a specific underlying technology. We (authors) followed the current IEEE 802.15.4-specific approach as it seemed more straightforward, and focusing on IEEE 802.15.4 entailed interesting opportunities. Coincidentally, this approach is similar to the original 6LoWPAN approach, which was designed to enable IPv6 over, mostly, IEEE 802.15.4. 6LoWPAN has been reused/adapted in 6lo to enable IPv6 over several other technologies, by means of a technology-specific document for each technology. Perhaps a similar approach could be followed if there is interest to enable the use of SCHC header compression over other technologies. Notes: - If we write a generic document, there will still need to be a technology-specific document for each intended underlying technology. - The document uses only the SCHC header compression component (i.e., 6LoWPAN/6lo functionality is used for fragmentation). Thoughts? Would you have any particular preference on this matter? Thanks, Carles and Ana (document authors) [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-schc-15dot4/ ___ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo ___ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
[6lo] SCHC HC over IEEE 802.15.4: 1. Generic vs IEEE 802.15.4-specific document
Dear 6lo WG, We would like to receive feedback about two potential discussion items regarding the document on transmission of SCHC-compressed packets over IEEE 802.15.4 networks [1]. We will send one separate message for each item. 1. Generic vs IEEE 802.15.4-specific document One question that has been raised on occasion is whether the document should be written specifically to enable the use of SCHC header compression over IEEE 802.15.4 networks (i.e., the current approach) or in a generic way, independent of a specific underlying technology. We (authors) followed the current IEEE 802.15.4-specific approach as it seemed more straightforward, and focusing on IEEE 802.15.4 entailed interesting opportunities. Coincidentally, this approach is similar to the original 6LoWPAN approach, which was designed to enable IPv6 over, mostly, IEEE 802.15.4. 6LoWPAN has been reused/adapted in 6lo to enable IPv6 over several other technologies, by means of a technology-specific document for each technology. Perhaps a similar approach could be followed if there is interest to enable the use of SCHC header compression over other technologies. Notes: - If we write a generic document, there will still need to be a technology-specific document for each intended underlying technology. - The document uses only the SCHC header compression component (i.e., 6LoWPAN/6lo functionality is used for fragmentation). Thoughts? Would you have any particular preference on this matter? Thanks, Carles and Ana (document authors) [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-schc-15dot4/ ___ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
