Hi Sergio, Happy holiday. Thanks for addressing my comments. Please see inline for the reply. I have skipped the part we agreed. Thanks, Bo -----Original Message----- From: Sergio Aguilar Romero [mailto:sergio.aguilar.romero@xxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2022 4:47 PM To: Wubo (lana) <lana.wubo@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-sigfox.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; lp-wan@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-sigfox-18 > 3. Section 3： > About "Provisioning protocol", can you give an example? Is this > suggesting Netconf protocol? > How the Rules are provision is out of the scope of this document and is part of current work in the LPWAN WG in the LPWAN Architecture draft, which mentions: "the use of several protocols for rule management, such as NETCONF[RFC6241], RESTCONF[RFC8040], and CORECONF[I-D.ietf-core-comi]" [Bo Wu] I agree that the detailed description is out of the scope. I just feel that the provisioning protocol is a little vague, and maybe an example can be added. > 4. Section 3.1 > The terms used in the architecture figure 1 and the document are > little confusing. > > In the figure 1, only sigfox device and Sigfox BS is marked, are the > other network entities not part of sigfox network? Maybe the scope of > the sigfox network can be provided. It is suggested to be consistent > that Network Gateway > (NGW) is called the Sigfox cloud-based Network or cloud-based Sigfox > Core Network? > We changed as part of the review process from Sigfox Network to Network Gateway (NGW). We have added below the NGW a label of Sigfox Cloud. Let us know if you think it provides the scope of the Sigfox network. [Bo Wu] In the figure 1, = : Internal Sigfox Network. Does this indicates "Network SCHC C/D + F/R" is also in the scope of Sigfox network? -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
