Added charter milestone "Produce a Standards Track document to enable  operations, administration and maintenance (OAM) to the LPWAN device, including support for delayed or proxied liveness verification (Ping)", due July 2021

Added charter milestone "Produce a Standards Track document to define the generic data models to formalize the compression and fragmentation contexts for LPWANs", due February 2021

[Ballot block]
I think this will be fairly easily to resolve. However, I don't understand what is meant with "baseline technologies" in:

2. Produce Standard Track documents to apply SCHC IPv6/UDP over the baseline
technologies.

Maybe some definition of what is meant with baseline technologies can be added. I could interpret that this would be to apply this to any IPv6 network, which I don't think it is.

[Ballot block]
One question on this point before we move ahead:
"provide a mechanism to improve the reliability of delivering fragmented multicast packets"

Do you mean something like FEC or something like retransmission? If the first I would be better to say that explicitly. If the latter, I think there might be further discussion about cross-relation with other groups needed before we can add something to the charter.

[Ballot comment]
I assume that "baseline technologies" is the list of technologies that the WG will focus on enabling IPv6 connectivity over?

The charter says that traffic tends to be "upstream", but we have a work item for multicast.  Is that multicast usage
expected to be upstream, downstream, or both?

  4. Produce a Standards Track document to define the generic data models to
  formalize the compression and fragmentation contexts.

I assume "the compression and fragmentation contexts" are scoped to something LPWAN-specific and not the generic
senses of compression and fragmentation.

[Ballot comment]
This new charter looks that some interesting work will be done by the WG ;-)

Nothing blocking but I have two comments that can be freely ignored:

- part of the charter (including the previous one) looks quite marketing to me: "To unleash the full power of LPWA technologies and their ecosystems" for example

- should there be a mention of working / liaison with other SDO rather than the vague "other stakeholders" ?

Looking forward to seeing the work produced by this WG!


-éric

[Ballot comment]
I edited out some funny space-like characters that were not actually ASCII spaces, and now the DIFF makes the changes clear, and it's easy to ballot "No Objection".

[Ballot comment]
While I try to review this and before I ballot:

Suresh, can you please reformat this so it's not one huge blob?

Thanks,
Barry

The lpwan WG has successfully completed its initial deliverables. The working group has been interested in a bunch of follow up work that I was gating on the initial items being completed. The charter text remains the same but the work items 1-5 have been added as new work.

The working group has completed its initial deliverables and the new work items (with numbers 1-5 have been discussed for a while in the working group).

[Ballot comment]
No objection to this charter, but I wonder what this sentence means:
    The work will include the
    definition of generic data models to describe the compression and
    fragmentation contexts.
In my world, data models mean YANG. What does it mean in your world? 

Regards, Benoit

[Ballot comment]
I support Alissa's comment. Is the proposed informational document something that will have archival value once the standards track work completes, or just a step towards the standard track work?

[Ballot comment]

Full disclosure: I may be participating in this WG as the
bit of my university currently sponsoring me are building
a LPWA testbed (mainly LoRa initially). I'd have said
yes anyway though:-)

[Ballot comment]
Does the informational document necessarily need to be an RFC? It sounds like this might be a case where the WG could leave its options open as to whether to publish that document or not once it is complete.