A Review for the draft
19/01/2018 sorry for sending later than the required date.
Thanks for the draft and hard work, and is very intersting. IMHO, the draft needs more details to better overview, I don't think it is up to date, or covers most gaps, we still need more references that are related more than the draft's references used. The terminology needs to be well defining terms for the different technologies of lpwan. The draft language needs to be more sure, as to delete the words as possible/maybe/probable/etc.
I don't think wireless technologies are better to be fixed to a star topology. Why does the draft make LPWAN tech or the WG only for STAR topology? please answer me. IMO wireless WAN should not be fixed to STAR topologies. usually LPWAN has advantage over the wired WAN because it can use some different topologies not fixed.
The draft needs to clarify the control plane and data plan issues. The draft mixes them without focus on their implications or technology needs or use-cases requirements.
The draft should present the reasons for lack of IPv6 use in the available technologies, but also the advantages of using IPv6 in such network.
The draft needs to be sure is this LPWAN using both IPv4 and/or IPv6, and IMO it should be only IPv6 , if so then please delete the old references of protocols related with IPv4 (as first reference is related to IPv4). The draft MUST reference IPv6 rfc8200 and other related technologies to the LPWAN in gap analysis sections.
The Goal stated in the draft:
The goal of the IETF LPWAN working group is to, where
necessary, adapt IETF-defined protocols, addressing schemes and
naming to this particular constrained environment.
necessary, adapt IETF-defined protocols, addressing schemes and
naming to this particular constrained environment.
IMO the adaptation needs to be by both parts/directions, the environment technologies and the IP technologies. The adaptation direction/approach needs good reasons for best practice. Usually the draft needs to show the use-cases or the lpwan technologies purposes or services to users. The draft needs to reference some work in IETF or IRTF related to network purpose (I am not sure which now but can find..) as the TCP/IP was developed for host to host network communication and new networks are developed with different purposes and needs IPv6 adaptations. This explanation needs to be solved in gap analysis.
There are some protocols in page 13 or in the figure which is related to ip but not discussed. IMO what can be missing the each lpwan technology under IP what does it provide to IPv6/upper-layer and what does the IPv6 provides to the under lpwan-technology? I think the answers is not clearly covered.
However, this work is a great work as informational, thanks
AB
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 2:34 AM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area
Networks WG (lpwan) to consider the following document: - 'LPWAN Overview'
<draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-07.txt> as Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2018-01-16. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) are wireless technologies with
characteristics such as large coverage areas, low bandwidth, possibly
very small packet and application layer data sizes and long battery
life operation. This memo is an informational overview of the set of
LPWAN technologies being considered in the IETF and of the gaps that
exist between the needs of those technologies and the goal of running
IP in LPWANs.
The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lpwan-overview/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lpwan-overview/b allot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.