Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-lpwan-architecture
draft-ietf-lpwan-architecture
LPWAN Working Group A. Pelov
Internet-Draft Acklio
Intended status: Informational P. Thubert
Expires: 1 January 2023 Cisco Systems
A. Minaburo
Acklio
30 June 2022
LPWAN Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) Architecture
draft-ietf-lpwan-architecture-02
Abstract
This document defines the LPWAN SCHC architecture.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 1 January 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Pelov, et al. Expires 1 January 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LPWAN Architecture June 2022
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. LPWAN Technologies and Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The Static Context Header Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. SCHC Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. LPWAN Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Compressing Serial Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.3. Example: Goose and DLMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. SCHC Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. SCHC Endpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.2. SCHC Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.3. Layering with SCHC Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. SCHC Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. SCHC Device Lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Device Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. Rules Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.3. SCHC Device Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.4. SCHC Device Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.5. SCHC Device Decommissionning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. IANA Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
The IETF LPWAN WG defined the necessary operations to enable IPv6
over selected Low-Power Wide Area Networking (LPWAN) radio
technologies. [rfc8376] presents an overview of those technologies.
The Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) [rfc8724] technology is
the core product of the IETF LPWAN working group. [rfc8724] defines a
generic framework for header compression and fragmentation, based on
a static context that is pre-installed on the SCHC endpoints.
This document details the constitutive elements of a SCHC-based
solution, and how the solution can be deployed. It provides a
general architecture for a SCHC deployment, positioning the required
specifications, describing the possible deployment types, and
indicating models whereby the rules can be distributed and installed
to enable reliable and scalable operations.
Pelov, et al. Expires 1 January 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LPWAN Architecture June 2022
2. LPWAN Technologies and Profiles
Because LPWAN technologies [rfc8376] have strict yet distinct
constraints, e.g., in terms of maximum frame size, throughput, and/or
directionality, a SCHC instance must be profiled to adapt to the
specific necessities of the technology to which it is applied.
Appendix D. "SCHC Parameters" of [rfc8724] lists the information
that an LPWAN technology-specific document must provide to profile
SCHC for that technology.
As an example, [rfc9011] provides the SCHC profile for LoRaWAN
networks.
3. The Static Context Header Compression
SCHC [rfc8724] specifies an extreme compression capability based on a
state that must match on the compressor and decompressor side. This
state comprises a set of Compression/Decompression (C/D) rules.
The SCHC Parser analyzes incoming packets and creates a list of
fields that it matches against the compression rules. The rule that
matches best is used to compress the packet, and the rule identifier
(RuleID) is transmitted together with the compression residue to the
decompressor. Based on the RuleID and the residue, the decompressor
can rebuild the original packet and forward it in its uncompressed
form over the Internet.
[rfc8724] also provides a Fragmentation/Reassembly (F/R) capability
to cope with the maximum and/or variable frame size of a Link, which
is extremely constrained in the case of an LPWAN network.
If a SCHC-compressed packet is too large to be sent in a single Link-
Layer PDU, the SCHC fragmentation can be applied on the compressed
packet. The process of SCHC fragmentation is similar to that of
compression; the fragmentation rules that are programmed for this
Device are checked to find the most appropriate one, regarding the
SCHC packet size, the link error rate, and the reliability level
required by the application.
The ruleID allows to determine if it is a compression or
fragmentation rule.
Pelov, et al. Expires 1 January 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LPWAN Architecture June 2022
4. SCHC Applicability
4.1. LPWAN Overview
4.2. Compressing Serial Streams
[rfc8724] was defined to compress IPv6 [rfc8200] and UDP; but SCHC
really is a generic compression and fragmentation technology. As
such, SCHC is agnostic to which protocol it compresses and at which
layer it is operated. The C/D peers may be hosted by different
entities for different layers, and the F/R operation may also be
performed between different parties, or different sub-layers in the
same stack, and/or managed by different organizations.
If a protocol or a layer requires additional capabilities, it is
always possible to document more specifically how to use SCHC in that
context, or to specify additional behaviours. For instance,
[rfc8824] extends the compression to CoAP [RFC7252] and OSCORE
[RFC8613].
4.3. Example: Goose and DLMS
5. SCHC Architecture
5.1. SCHC Endpoints
Section 3 of [rfc8724] depicts a typical network architecture for an
LPWAN network, simplified from that shown in [rfc8376] and reproduced
in Figure 1.
() () () |
() () () () / \ +---------+
() () () () () () / \======| ^ | +-----------+
() () () | | <--|--> | |Application|
() () () () / \==========| v |=============| Server |
() () () / \ +---------+ +-----------+
Dev RGWs NGW App
Figure 1: Typical LPWAN Network Architecture
Pelov, et al. Expires 1 January 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LPWAN Architecture June 2022
Typically, an LPWAN network topology is star-oriented, which means
that all packets between the same source-destination pair follow the
same path from/to a central point. In that model, highly constrained
Devices (Dev) exchange information with LPWAN Application Servers
(App) through a central Network Gateway (NGW), which can be powered
and is typically a lot less constrained than the Devices. Because
Devices embed built-in applications, the traffic flows to be
compressed are known in advance and the location of the C/D and F/R
functions (e.g., at the Dev and NGW), and the associated rules, can
be pre provisioned in the system before use.
The SCHC operation requires a shared sense of which SCHC Device is
Uplink (Dev to App) and which is Downlink (App to Dev), see
[rfc8376]. In a star deployment, the hub is always considered Uplink
and the spokes are Downlink. The expectation is that the hub and
spoke derive knowledge of their role from the network configuration
and SCHC does not need to signal which is hub thus Uplink vs. which
is spoke thus Downlink. In other words, the link direction is
determined from extrinsic properties, and is not advertised in the
protocol.
Nevertheless, SCHC is very generic and its applicability is not
limited to star-oriented deployments and/or to use cases where
applications are very static and the state provisioned in advance.
In particular, a peer-to-peer (P2P) SCHC Instance (see Section 5.2)
may be set up between peers of equivalent capabilities, and the link
direction cannot be inferred, either from the network topology nor
from the device capability.
In that case, by convention, the device that initiates the donnection
that sustains the SCHC Instance is considered as being Downlink, IOW
it plays the role of the Dev in [rfc8724].
This convention can be reversed, e.g., by configuration, but for
proper SCHC operation, it is required that the method used ensures
that both ends are aware of their role, and then again this
determination is based on extrinsic properties.
5.2. SCHC Instances
[rfc8724] defines a protocol operation between a pair of peers. A
session called a SCHC Instance is established and SCHC maintains a
state and timers associated to that Instance.
When the SCHC Device is a highly constrained unit, there is typically
only one Instance for that Device, and all the traffic from and to
the device is exchanged with the same Network Gateway. All the
traffic can thus be implicitly associated with the single Instance
Pelov, et al. Expires 1 January 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LPWAN Architecture June 2022
that the device supports, and the Device does not need to manipulate
the concept. For that reason, SCHC avoids to signal explicitly the
Instance identification in its data packets.
The Network Gateway, on the other hand, maintains multiple Instances,
one per SCHC Device. The Instance is derived from the lower layer,
typically the source of an incoming SCHC packet. The Instance is
used in particular to select from the rule database the set of rules
that apply to the SCHC Device, and the current state of their
exchange, e.g., timers and previous fragments.
This architecture generalizes the model to any kind of peers. In the
case of more capable devices, a SCHC Device may maintain more than
one Instance with the same peer, or a set of different peers. Since
SCHC does not signal the Instance in its packets, the information
must be derived from a lower layer point to point information. For
instance, the SCHC session can be associated one-to-one with a
tunnel, a TLS session, or a TCP or a PPP connection.
For instance, [I-D.thubert-intarea-schc-over-ppp] describes a type of
deployment where the C/D and/or F/R operations are performed between
peers of equal capabilities over a PPP [rfc2516] connection. SCHC
over PPP illustrates that with SCHC, the protocols that are
compressed can be discovered dynamically and the rules can be fetched
on-demand by both parties from the same Uniform Resource Name (URN)
[rfc8141], ensuring that the peers use the exact same set of rules.
+----------+ Wi-Fi / +----------+ ....
| IP | Ethernet | IP | .. )
| Host +-----/------+ Router +----------( Internet )
| SCHC C/D | Serial | SCHC C/D | ( )
+----------+ +----------+ ...
<-- SCHC -->
over PPP
Figure 2: PPP-based SCHC Deployment
In that case, the SCHC Instance is derived from the PPP connection.
This means that there can be only one Instance per PPP connection,
and that all the flow and only the flow of that Instance is exchanged
within the PPP connection.
5.3. Layering with SCHC Instances
[rfc8724] states that a SCHC instance needs the rules to process C/D
and F/R before the session starts, and that rules cannot be modified
during the session.
Pelov, et al. Expires 1 January 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LPWAN Architecture June 2022
As represented figure Figure 3, the compression of the IP and UDP
headers may be operated by a network SCHC instance whereas the end-
to-end compression of the application payload happens between the
Device and the application. The compression of the application
payload may be split in two instances to deal with the encrypted
portion of the application PDU. Fragmentation applies before LPWAN
transportation layer.
(Device) (NGW) (App)
+--------+ +--------+
A S | CoAP | | CoAP |
p C | inner | | inner |
p H +--------+ +--------+
. C | SCHC | | SCHC |
| inner | cryptographical boundary | inner |
-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._
A S | CoAP | | CoAP |
p C | outer | | outer |
p H +--------+ +--------+
. C | SCHC | | SCHC |
| outer | layer / functional boundary | outer |
-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._
N . UDP . . UDP .
e .......... .................. ..........
t . IPv6 . . IPv6 . . IPv6 .
w S .......... .................. ..........
o C .SCHC/L3 . . SCHC/L3. . . .
r H .......... .......... . . .
k C . LPWAN . . LPWAN . . . .
.......... .................. ..........
((((LPWAN)))) ------ Internet ------
Figure 3: Different SCHC instances in a global system
This document defines a generic architecture for SCHC that can be
used at any of these levels. The goal of the architectural document
is to orchestrate the different protocols and data model defined by
the LPWAN working group to design an operational and interoperable
framework for allowing IP application over contrained networks.
6. SCHC Data Model
A SCHC instance, summarized in the Figure 4, implies C/D and/or F/R
present in both end and that both ends are provisioned with the same
set of rules.
Pelov, et al. Expires 1 January 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LPWAN Architecture June 2022
(-------) (-------)
( Rules ) ( Rules )
(-------) (-------)
. read . read
. .
+-------+ +-------+
<===| R & D |<=== <===| C & F |<===
===>| C & F |===> ===>| R & D |===>
+-------+
Figure 4: Summarized SCHC elements
A common rule representation that expresses the SCHC rules in an
interoperable fashion is needed yo be able to provision end-points
from different vendors To that effect,
[I-D.ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model] defines a rule representation
using the YANG [rfc7950] formalism.
[I-D.ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model] defines an YANG data model to
represent the rules. This enables the use of several protocols for
rule management, such as NETCONF[RFC6241], RESTCONF[RFC8040], and
CORECONF[I-D.ietf-core-comi]. NETCONF uses SSH, RESTCONF uses HTTPS,
and CORECONF uses CoAP(s) as their respective transport layer
protocols. The data is represented in XML under NETCONF, in
JSON[RFC8259] under RESTCONF and in CBOR[RFC8949] under CORECONF.
create
(-------) read +=======+ *
( rules )<------->|Rule |<--|-------->
(-------) update |Manager| NETCONF, RESTCONF or CORECONF
. read delete +=======+ request
.
+-------+
<===| R & D |<===
===>| C & F |===>
+-------+
Figure 5: Summerized SCHC elements
The Rule Manager (RM) is in charge of handling data derived from the
YANG Data Model and apply changes to the rules database Figure 5.
The RM is an Application using the Internet to exchange information,
therefore:
* for the network-level SCHC, the communication does not require
routing. Each of the end-points having an RM and both RMs can be
viewed on the same link, therefore wellknown Link Local addresses
Pelov, et al. Expires 1 January 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LPWAN Architecture June 2022
can be used to identify the Device and the core RM. L2 security
MAY be deemed as sufficient, if it provides the necessary level of
protection.
* for application-level SCHC, routing is involved and global IP
addresses SHOULD be used. End-to-end encryption is RECOMMENDED.
Management messages can also be carried in the negotiation protocol
as proposed in [I-D.thubert-intarea-schc-over-ppp]. The RM traffic
may be itself compressed by SCHC: if CORECONF protocol is used,
[rfc8824] can be applied.
7. SCHC Device Lifecycle
In the context of LPWANs, the expectation is that SCHC rules are
associated with a physical device that is deployed in a network.
This section describes the actions taken to enable an autimatic
commissioning of the device in the network. SCHC
7.1. Device Development
The expectation for the development cycle is that message formats are
documented as a data model that is used to generate rules. Several
models are possible:
1. In the application model, an interface definition language and
binary communication protocol such as Apache Thrift is used, and
the serialization code includes the SCHC operation. This model
imposes that both ends are compiled with the generated structures
and linked with generated code that represents the rule
operation.
2. In the device model, the rules are generated separately. Only
the device-side code is linked with generated code. The Rules
are published separately to be used by a generic SCHC engine that
operates in a middle box such as a SCHC gateway.
3. In the protocol model, both endpoint generate a packet format
that is imposed by a protocol. In that case, the protocol itself
is the source to generate the Rules. Both ends of the SCHC
compression are operated in middle boxes, and special attention
must be taken to ensure that they operate on the compatible Rule
sets, basically the same major version of the same Rule Set.
Depending on the deployment, the tools thar generate the Rules should
provide knobs to optimize the Rule set, e.g., more rules vs. larger
residue.
Pelov, et al. Expires 1 January 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LPWAN Architecture June 2022
7.2. Rules Publication
In the device model and in the protocol model, at least one of the
endpoints must obtain the rule set dynamically. The expectation is
that the Rule Sets are published to a reachable repository and
versionned (minor, major). Each rule set should have its own Uniform
Resource Names (URN) [RFC8141] and a version.
The Rule Set should be authenticated to ensure that it is genuine, or
obtained from a trusted app store. A corrupted Rule Set may be used
for multiple forms of attacks, more in Section 8.
7.3. SCHC Device Deployment
The device and the network should mutually authenticate themselves.
The autonomic approach [RFC8993] provides a model to achieve this at
scale with zero touchn, in networks where enough bandwidth and
compute are available. In highly constrained networks, one touch is
usually necessary to program keys in the devices.
The initial handshake between the SCHC endpoints should comprise a
capability exchange whereby URN and the version of the rule set are
obtained or compared. SCHC may not be used if both ends can not
agree on an URN and a major version. Manufacturer Usage Descriptions
(MUD) [RFC8520] may be used for that purpose in the device model.
Upon the handshake, both ends can agree on a rule set, their role
when the rules are asymmetrical, and fetch the rule set if necessary.
Optionally, a node that fetwhed a rule set may inform the other end
that it is reacy from transmission.
7.4. SCHC Device Maintenance
URN update without device update (bug fix) FUOTA => new URN =>
reprovisioning
7.5. SCHC Device Decommissionning
Signal from device/vendor/network admin
8. Security Considerations
SCHC is sensitive to the rules that could be abused to form arbitrary
long messages or as a form of attack against the C/D and/or F/R
functions, say to generate a buffer overflow and either modify the
Device or crash it. It is thus critical to ensure that the rules are
distributed in a fashion that is protected against tempering, e.g.,
encrypted and signed.
Pelov, et al. Expires 1 January 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LPWAN Architecture June 2022
9. IANA Consideration
This document has no request to IANA
10. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank (in alphabetic order):
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8141] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Klensin, "Uniform Resource Names
(URNs)", RFC 8141, DOI 10.17487/RFC8141, April 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8141>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8520] Lear, E., Droms, R., and D. Romascanu, "Manufacturer Usage
Description Specification", RFC 8520,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8520, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8520>.
[rfc8724] Minaburo, A., Toutain, L., Gomez, C., Barthel, D., and JC.
Zuniga, "SCHC: Generic Framework for Static Context Header
Compression and Fragmentation", RFC 8724,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8724, April 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8724>.
[rfc8824] Minaburo, A., Toutain, L., and R. Andreasen, "Static
Context Header Compression (SCHC) for the Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 8824,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8824, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8824>.
[RFC8993] Behringer, M., Ed., Carpenter, B., Eckert, T., Ciavaglia,
L., and J. Nobre, "A Reference Model for Autonomic
Networking", RFC 8993, DOI 10.17487/RFC8993, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8993>.
Pelov, et al. Expires 1 January 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LPWAN Architecture June 2022
[rfc9011] Gimenez, O., Ed. and I. Petrov, Ed., "Static Context
Header Compression and Fragmentation (SCHC) over LoRaWAN",
RFC 9011, DOI 10.17487/RFC9011, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9011>.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-core-comi]
Veillette, M., Stok, P. V. D., Pelov, A., Bierman, A., and
I. Petrov, "CoAP Management Interface (CORECONF)", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-comi-11, 17
January 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-
core-comi-11.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model]
Minaburo, A. and L. Toutain, "Data Model for Static
Context Header Compression (SCHC)", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model-12,
25 May 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-
lpwan-schc-yang-data-model-12.txt>.
[I-D.thubert-intarea-schc-over-ppp]
Thubert, P., "SCHC over PPP", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-thubert-intarea-schc-over-ppp-03, 21 April
2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thubert-
intarea-schc-over-ppp-03.txt>.
[rfc2516] Mamakos, L., Lidl, K., Evarts, J., Carrel, D., Simone, D.,
and R. Wheeler, "A Method for Transmitting PPP Over
Ethernet (PPPoE)", RFC 2516, DOI 10.17487/RFC2516,
February 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2516>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
[rfc7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
Pelov, et al. Expires 1 January 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LPWAN Architecture June 2022
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[rfc8141] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Klensin, "Uniform Resource Names
(URNs)", RFC 8141, DOI 10.17487/RFC8141, April 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8141>.
[rfc8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.
[rfc8376] Farrell, S., Ed., "Low-Power Wide Area Network (LPWAN)
Overview", RFC 8376, DOI 10.17487/RFC8376, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8376>.
[RFC8613] Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz,
"Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
(OSCORE)", RFC 8613, DOI 10.17487/RFC8613, July 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8613>.
[RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.
Authors' Addresses
Alexander Pelov
Acklio
1137A avenue des Champs Blancs
35510 Cesson-Sevigne Cedex
France
Email: a@ackl.io
Pascal Thubert
Cisco Systems
45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
06254 Mougins - Sophia Antipolis
France
Email: pthubert@cisco.com
Pelov, et al. Expires 1 January 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LPWAN Architecture June 2022
Ana Minaburo
Acklio
1137A avenue des Champs Blancs
35510 Cesson-Sevigne Cedex
France
Email: ana@ackl.io
Pelov, et al. Expires 1 January 2023 [Page 14]
