Hi Sergio, The new version has addressed my comments. Thanks and regards, Bo -----Original Message----- From: Sergio Aguilar Romero [mailto:sergio.aguilar.romero@xxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 1:00 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 Hello Bo, Happy new year. We have published a new version of the draft. Please find our comments below. Best regards, Authors of the SCHC over Sigfox draft > On Dec 27, 2022, at 6:11 AM, Wubo (lana) <lana.wubo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. We added an example with information of the provisioning protocol. > >> 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? > > We have modified figure 1 to indicate that the Network SCHC C/D + F/R is part of the external IP-based network. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
