My comments [cm] and suggestions [sg],
[cm] IMHO, Rfc4919 is easy to read and I prefer this draft to have similar structure. Long pages with no sections and subsections makes it difficult to read or see characteristics. please make some subsections with a number or with a point.
[Sg] The title should not be in letters, however the draft does not cover all LPWAN technologies available, so I suggest
[sg] replace title to > Low Power Wide Area Networks technology overview
[Sg] to delete the dollar costs in the draft's body, only in the introduction we may mention that as to give a feeling of cost, but if we put per technology, that seems like writing marketing or business information, and not writing engineering informational.
In 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.
cm> The draft must state exactly the Low Power characteristic as defining it with wireless wan. IMO we don't use the bandwidth to represent bit rate while discussing in the layers under ip. Furthermore, some LPWAN use spread techniques LoRa which are not low BW or not NB.
cm> In page 21 the draft contradicts the low BW by mentioning high BW, but that is spreading BW not speed.
Old edit> 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.
New edit>
Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) are wireless networks with low power and long range transmission technologies, with characteristics such as low transmission bit rate, high receiver sensitivity, possibly very small packet and application layer data sizes and long battery life operation, and large number of end devices distributed over large geographical areas for a low cost.
Add> Applicability Statement: (add in one section number)
The objective of LPWAN technologies is to achieve a long range with low power consumption and low cost different from other wireless WAN technologies for which achieving higher data rate, lower latency and higher reliability. LPWAN technologies are used in various emerging smart city and machine-to-machine (M2M) applications like: tracking physical objects, detecting or monitoring data about environment/industry/system, metering reporting for water, electricity, etc. Furthermore, in some applications the end-devices may be dependent or independent within the network, and the end-devices are either part in the data analysis or just data reporting. Mostly in LPWAN the end-devices are used as data reporting with low processing and the gateways as the access point. Some applications can use the end-devices as transmitters only without receivers, or with very short listening periods.
Add> LPWAN uses star topology to eliminates many overhead associated with the use of meshing such as forwarding or routing overheads.
SG> Rfc7452 should be referenced because mentions the Architectural Considerations in Smart Object Networking which is related in covering the gap for LPWAN.
[cm] the LoRA gateways use IP, but end devices have no.
Sg>delete> As of today, essentially no LPWAN devices have IP capabilities.
Replace> As of today, essentially no LPWAN end-devices have IP capabilities.
[cm] there are redundancy in the draft, needs to be deleted. Example when draft defines LPWAN, then RoLa is simply defined that it is a LPWAN, we don't have to repeat LPWAN definition again.another example is repeating the life of 10 year for each technology, which can be defined once for LPWAN. However, that life time was not an important characteristic for the specific technology, so I think we should specify subsections for character.
[Cm] the draft does not mention the MAC mechanisms used for each LPWAN technologies, which is very important when we want to make IP over LPWAN. It needs to mention ALOHA and CSMA which are used in LPWAN. I think RoLa and SIGFox use ALOHA, and NB-IoT uses TDMA.
[cm] as we are in IETF can contact those vendors of these technologies of LPWAN, we can get the information easily confirmed.
Suggest> each technology within the characteristic section needs to clarify the uplink (UL) and downlink (DL) data/control messages or channels, and symmetrical or/and asymmetric, for each subsection of the following:
-ranges (for rural, urban, they maybe with different ranges)
-band (licensed or unlicensed) and with region/country
-data rate and duty cycle
-channels
-end-devices memory/processing needs
-link budget target
-MAC mechanism used for up and/or down
-Modulation/coding
-max number of devices served
-roaming/handover availability
-localization
-synchronized of synchronized network
-main application other possibility.
-operation
[sg]
Old> section 2.1.1>
LoRaWAN is an ISM-based wireless technology for long-range low-power
low-data-rate applications developed by the LoRa Alliance, a
membership consortium. <https://www.lora-alliance.org/> This draft
is based on version 1.0.2 [LoRaSpec] of the LoRa specification. That
specification is publicly available and has already seen several
deployments across the globe.
New> section 2.1.1>
LoRaWAN is an ISM-based LPWAN developed by the LoRa Alliance, a
membership consortium. <https://www.lora-alliance.org/> This draft
is based on version 1.0.2 [LoRaSpec] of the LoRa specification. That
specification is publicly available and has already seen several
deployments across the globe.
[cm] the RFC7452 is very interesting because it mentions the tricky issue I mentioned in my previous email for this overview, also theis RFC refered that some technologies may be rebuild, similar to what I was mentioning in my email regarding adaptations by both IP protocols and the under-technologies. I suggest that should be mentioned also in the draft.
[Sg] The LPWAN is used/applied within the IoT and M2M environment, so we need to consider the recommendations of RFC7452.
[Sg] The gap analysis should include some issues/analysis in RFC7452 (or reference and point to it), because rfc7452 makes important protocol design considerations related to LPWAN technologies, also this RFC mentions some IP challenges for such smart environment.
Section 5> should reference rfc7452 and 8240, because they make important security considerations related to this draft.
Add>References>
Raza, U., Kulkarni, P., and Sooriyabandara, M., 'Low Power Wide Area Networks: An Overview', 2017
H. Tschofenig, J. Arkko, D. Thaler, and D. McPherson, 'Architectural Considerations in Smart Object Networking', RFC7452, Mar 2015
Hiya,
On 20/01/18 23:03, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> How are you doing, it is long time from last time we meet in ietf89,
Yes, time flies.
> I
> thank you for your welcoming. my comments below
No problem.
> but ok, I will do some suggestions in my next message for you,
Grand. I'll respond in detail when you send your suggested text.
S.
--
PGP key change time for me.
New-ID 7B172BEA; old-ID 805F8DA2 expires Jan 24 2018.
NewWithOld sigs in keyservers.
Sorry if that mucks something up;-)