Connection details ------------------ * Date: June 13, 2018 * Time: 8-9AM DST, 17:00 CEST: https://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=2988507,1816670,5391959,5128581&h=2988507&date=2018-06-13&sln=17-18 * Webex Link: https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?MTID=mf0e1c96b73e92ea011426be8227d8678 * Meeting number: 202 477 894 * Meeting password: QprtWqpe (77789773 from phones) * Join from a video conferencing system or application * Dial 202477894@cisco.webex.com * Join by phone * +1-866-432-9903 Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada) * +1-408-525-6800 Call-in toll number (US/Canada) * Access code: 202 477 894 * * Global call-in numbers: * https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=410481357&tollFree=1 Minute takers ------------- * Ana Minaburo * Pascal Thubert * Dominique Barthel * Carles Gomez * Alexander Pelov Attendees --------- Ana Minaburo Laurent Toutain Pascal Thubert Alexander Pelov Carles Gomez Dominique Barthel Juan Carlos Zuniga Julien Catalano Ricardo Andreasen Past Attendees --------- * Alex Pelov * Flavien Moullec * Felipe Díaz-Sánchez * Ana minaburo * Dominique Barthel * Laurent Toutain * Carles Gomez * Ivaylo Petrov * Juan-Carlos Zuniga * Julien Catalano * Orne Brocaar * Pascal Thubert * Vijay Gharge * Orne Brocaar * Paventhan Arumugam * Paul Duffy * Diego Dujovne * Pascal Thubert * Alex Pelov * Laurent Toutain * Ana Minaburo * Vanessa Valderrama * Dominique Barthel * Julien Catalano * Edgar Ramos * Carles Gomez * J Sanchez * Ramon Sanchez * Juan-Carlos Zuniga * Felipe Díaz-Sánchez Action Items from last time ---------------------------- Chairs: find reviewers for drafts Agenda ------ * [17:05] Administrivia [ 5min] o Note-Well, Scribes, Agenda Bashing o Status of drafts * [17:10] SCHC padding - Dominique [10min] * [17:20] SCHC Tickets and Discussed options - Ana [30min] * [17:50] SCHC CoAP - Laurent [10min] * [18:00] AOB [ 0min] Minutes ------- * [17:05] Administrivia [ 5min] o Note-Well, Scribes, Agenda Bashing o Status of drafts Pascal: Makes the note well Pascal: main goal is to finish SCHC Alex: validate last meeting minutes Two reviewers: Sothy, Juan Carlos, Charles Perkins * [17:10] UDP checksum elision in SCHC - Pascal Pascal: presents the text for the MIC, take care of the differences between the RFC 6282 case and SCHC Pascal: The text asks for special care since if data are corrupted between compression and fragmentation, there will be no way to detect it Ana: new section for this in the SCHC draft? Pascal: yes. * [17:10] SCHC padding - Dominique [10min] Dominique: converging in this single padding proposal, gives a brief Dominique explains the status of the proposal. Two wakeup calls in the last two weeks. 6 positive responses, no negative response from the list. Time to make a decision? Could publish new version by end of week. Alex: I suggest you go ahead, merge it with the main branch * [17:20] SCHC Tickets and Discussed options - Ana [30min] Ana:7 open tickets (3 green discussion we had during past meeting) Ana: ticket not discussed before: - use of fragmentation. With the new session explaining the layer in SCHC, the ticket is almost done. The technology specific document will have to discribe if fragmentation has to be used. Dominique: I exchanged emails with Edgar. His understanding of NB-IoT capabilities is being refined, padding and frag are investigated. I would recommend to stay abstract and generic in the SCHC draft. Edgar expressed support of the new padding proposal. Ana: multi-rat is out of the scope, the change of channel characterisitic is not solved. More discussion to see if the group has to go further. PAscal: we always had the question of changing SF during fragmentation for LoRa, SF change it is not supported. Add some text saying that the document is not targeting on it, but can be added to a TSD Ana: on DTag. Only 1 SCHC packet at a given time. Discussed at technical meeting, and decided to close the ticket. Any issues? [None] Pascal: we need to request for publication this document (SCHC) before rechartering Ana: write that the ruleId for Ack is the same as the fragment packet. Ana: New ticket Ack always baseline description, a sentence has been removed by mistake. Will be do after jthe join of branches in github Ana: ticket #29: to be clearer when explaining the bitmap encoding. Ana: will check after merging the two branches Ana: can we close ticket #12? [replies from folks: Yes] Ana: on ticket #20. Laurent: I think Option 2 is good. "L2 Word" adds an initial difficulty because it introduces an abstraction, but at the end makes the description much simpler. Alex (chair-hat off): I also think adding the "L2 word" term is an improvement Dominique: #20 was really about the graphical representation of the drawing. An arrow on both sides of "byte boundary" conveyed the idea that there was one and only one byte between the arrows. A single arrow pointing right is intended to convey the meaning that this boundary can encompass one or more bytes from the beginning of the field. This is not about Byte vs L2 Word. Dominique: I think nobody disagreed with the single, right-pointing arrow, no need to discuss it further Ana: last ticket is C bit in ACK. Consensus is draw the attention that the last ACK is one bit bigger Ana: next steps: apply the changes and publish! Alex: was this all tickets? Ana: yes! Alex: when could we have the new draft version? Ana: we need to make the changes with Dominique, we need to schedule one day for that Alex: the sooner we get the reviews, the better. Pascal: shoot for last Wednesday of this month? Ana, others: yes Target (cut-off) date not to be missed July 2nd. Pascal: tomorrow the IETF agenda will be published. If the scheduled day for the LPWAN session is an issue, please let us know ASAP * [17:50] SCHC CoAP - Laurent [10min] Laurent: Changes in the new version * Publish a new version if we agree today * New section where we can do SCHC Compression for CoAP: One global and the other one when security is there and you need to do it end to end * Delete rules that are already done in the SCHC draft * Section to describe the differences between CoAP and UDP/IPv6 compression * Difference between SCHC for CoAP and IP/UDP * Each CoAP field is explained and presented how SCHC works on it * Type of compression that you can use for the different fields (e.g. Type can use up- and down- ...) * Code has almost the same behavior, we can use matchmapping and specific rules to do that * Message ID need discussion not all the details has been introduced * Dev is a client What is the size we can send in the link * Dev is server we need to use a proxy and security issues, need more disucssion in this behavior * Exchange life time value is very important in LPWAN * During this period the same value cannot be used (introduce in the time scale draft sent to Core WG) * Retransmission can happen at any time * The exchange time depends on the DWL and ACK will be send in this anticipation window Alex: Does it requires in the timesclae draft of Corre WG? Laurent: Yes, this exchange lifetime will be send in the Time scale option Alex: can we do it without Timescale option? Laurent: No, Discussion needed: * Block: is it compatible with LPWAN? Alex: they are complimentary * Observe * No Response * Time Scale: Needs more discussion with Core WG * OSCORE is already done, may be presented next interim meeting Pascal: can we request publication for this at the same time as SCHC (IP/UDP)? Laurent: We need a CoAP expert to review and Sheperd this document Pascal: We can do last call and see with Core. WGLC will force people to review the document. Laurent: many things are open to discussion (different options for doing things, etc) Alex: ask if we can split in two documents: SCHC COAP based and one SCHC COAP extended for advanced stuffs to have more time for discussion Laurent: 2 bit for your MID Alex: a last call will make people react Alex: let's see if it is possible to do the split, otherwise we may need a new target date for the CoAP work Laurent: look at the text on GitHub, this is what we want to discuss. ToDO: Publish a new version * [18:00] AOB [ 0min]