Hi Stephen,
How are you doing, it is long time from last time we meet in ietf89, I thank you for your welcoming. my comments below
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hiya,
Thanks for the review.
On 19/01/18 16:47, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> 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.
If you have specific errors you'd like to highlight or changes
you'd like to suggest, as editor, I'd be happy to look those over,
but for now the above isn't actionable.
ok, I will need one day to review with suggests, if you don't mind,
>
> 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.
The task of the WG is not to re-invent or change LPWAN lower layers,
but to figure out how to run IP over those. A star topology is what
is used by some of these technologies as is mentioned in the WG
charter [1] so it is IMO correct that the overview draft describes
that.
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/wg/lpwan/charters
The draft is a work adopted by the WG and IMHO the WG can make the reason clear in their draft why STAR topology while we have wireless wan? The draft is informational,,, but some missing info,
There are reasons why the industry followed such direction, because the mesh topology overhead while the network is low power and needs less link budget. It is good to know why because businesses/technologies can be tricky in future with new ways into switching.
> 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.
Sorry, again that's not actionable. If you have specific wording
changes to suggest, or text to criticise I'll be happy to look at
such comments.
Without suggest text, I think it may be actionable, as a feedback to author/WG and iesg. Regarding the technologies use-cases, under the RFC2026 section 3.2 the AS is needed, I suggest the draft mentions applicability statement for the LPWAN applications/use-cases and the usefulness of IPv6 protocols. IMO the applications are mostly for smart cities.
but ok, I will do some suggestions in my next message for you,
AB