Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) over LoRaWAN
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, The IESG <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Dominique Barthel <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Subject: Protocol Action: 'Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) over LoRaWAN' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan-09.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) over LoRaWAN' (draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan-09.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networks Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Erik Kline and Éric Vyncke. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan/
Technical Summary RFC8724 has specified a generic framework for Static Context Header Compression and fragmentation (SCHC), designed with Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) in mind. LoRaWAN(R) is one such LPWAN technology. This document describes parameters and modes of operation for efficiently using RFC8724 over the LoraWAN networks. Working Group Summary There was no particular controversy or rough consensus to be noted. The authors are affiliated with two companies that have a strong involvement both in the IETF LPWAN WG and in the LoRa Alliance. Feedback and design considerations were received from other companies primarily involved in the LoRa Alliance. Information has been delivered both ways between the two SDOs, so we beleive the interests of the LoRa Alliance are well addressed by this document. There were technical discussions and design iterations regarding features allowing RFC8724 to efficiently operate over quasi-bidirectional links, which were constructive and professional. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type Review, on what date was the request posted? Personnel The document shepherd is Dominique Barthel. The Responsible Area Director is Éric Vyncke. IESG Note AD has checked with authors whether Lora Alliance has been consulted and is happy with this document.