Internet DRAFT - draft-pelov-core-cosol
draft-pelov-core-cosol
Internet Engineering Task Force A. Pelov, Ed.
Internet-Draft Acklio
Intended status: Informational L. Toutain, Ed.
Expires: August 20, 2016 Institut MINES-TELECOM ; TELECOM Bretagne
Y. Delibie, Ed.
Kerlink
February 17, 2016
Constrained Signaling Over LP-WAN
draft-pelov-core-cosol-01
Abstract
This document presents a new type of long-range, low-rate radio
technologies and an extensible mechanism to operate these networks
based on CoAP. The emerging Low-Power Wide-Area Networks (LP-WAN)
present a particular set of constraints, which places them at the
intersection of infrastructure networks, ultra-dense networks, delay-
tolerant networks and low-power and lossy networks. The main
objectives of LP-WAN signaling is to minimize the number of exchanged
messages, minimize the size of each message in a secure and
extensible manner, all with keeping the fundamental principle of
technology-independence (L2-independence). This document describes
the use of the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) as the main
signaling protocol for LP-WAN, over which minimal messages are
exchanged allowing the full operation of the network, such as
authentication, authorization, and management. The use of CoAP
signaling provides a generic mechanism that can be applied to
different LP-WAN technologies.
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 http://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 August 20, 2016.
Pelov, et al. Expires August 20, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Constrained Signaling Over LP-WAN February 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
(http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. LP-WAN Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Radio technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Physical Layer Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1. Ultra Narrowband LP-WAN radios . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.2. Spread-spectrum LP-WAN radios . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. MAC Layer Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. CoSOL Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. General LP-WAN architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Node-F lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. CoAP as Signaling Protocol for LP-WANs . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.1. Semi-Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.2. Network Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.3. Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3.4. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3.5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.6. Dissociation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
The goal of this document is to provide the necessary mechanisms to
operate a Low-Power Wide-Area Network (LP-WAN) by using IETF CoAP
[RFC7252] as a core signaling protocol.
Pelov, et al. Expires August 20, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Constrained Signaling Over LP-WAN February 2016
Long-range, low-rate radio technologies have emerged in the past
several years, and are the base for building LP-WANs. LP-WANs
generally have the following characteristics:
o Work in narrow, license-free (ISM) bands with good propagation
properties (< 1GHz)
o Low- to very-low throughput (1-200 kbps)
o Low-power operation (25 mW in Europe)
o Long-range communication capabilities (up to 30 km with line-of-
sight, several km in urban environment)
o Strong channel access restrictions (1% to 10% duty cycling)
o Infrastructure-based
o Star topology
LP-WANs are built on radio communication technologies, which use
advanced signal processing techniques and combination of appropriate
modulation and coding approaches to provide the aforementioned radio
characteristics.
The absence of license fees and the far-reaching connectivity allow
for an extremely competitive pricing of LP-WANs compared to other
networking technologies, e.g. cellular or mesh. LP-WANs are
sometimes referred to as LPWA or LR-WAN (Low-Rate WAN). Even though
LP-WANs are extremely limited in terms of network performance, they
are enough for a wide class of applications, among which [LTN001]:
o Metering (water, gas, electricity)
o Infrastructure networks (water, gas, electricity, roads,
pipelines, drains)
o Environment/Smart City (waste management, air pollution monitoring
and alerting, acoustic noise monitoring, public lighting
management, parking management, self service bike rental, digital
board monitoring, water pipe leakage monitoring)
o Environment/Country side (soil quality, livestock surveillance,
cattle and pet monitoring, climate, irrigation)
o Remote monitoring (house, building)
o Industrial (water tank, asset tracking)
Pelov, et al. Expires August 20, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Constrained Signaling Over LP-WAN February 2016
o Automotive (vehicle tracking, impact detection, pay as you drive,
assistance request, ...)
o Logistics (goods tracking, conservation monitoring)
o Healthcare (patient monitoring, home medical equipment usage)
o House appliances (pet tracking, white goods, personal asset)
o Truck (tyre monitoring)
o Identification (authentication)
The IEEE is studying LP-WANs, but limited to the case of low-energy
critical infrastructure monitoring (LECIM), under the group IEEE
802.15.4k [IEEE.802-15.4k].
The combination of the above characteristics and the envisioned
applications define a new class of networks with the following unique
constraints:
o Potentially extremely high density (expected of up to 10k-100k+
end-devices managed by a single radio antena)
o Coexistence of delay-tolerant and critical applications (metering
and alarms)
o Low-power, low-throughput, lossy connectivity (use of ISM bands)
o Limited payload (100 bytes max, typically less than 50 bytes, 12
bytes for UNB)
CoAP is a client-server protocol specialized for constrained networks
and devices. CoAP is highly optimized, extensible, standard
protocol, which in conjunction with the Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR) is the ideal candidate for the signaling
protocol of the control plane of an LP-WAN.
It can be used during all stages of the lifecycle of the network,
e.g. discovery, authentication, operation. Furthermore, this can be
achieved by following RESTful management paradigm, by using a
particular resource tree definition or adopting COOL
[I-D.veillette-core-cool].
Pelov, et al. Expires August 20, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Constrained Signaling Over LP-WAN February 2016
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. LP-WAN Technologies
2.1. Radio technologies
There are two classes of LP-WAN radio technologies, using different
radio modulation approaches:
o Ultra Narrow Band (UNB)
o Spread-spectrum (SS)
An example of UNB is the technology developed and promoted by SigFox
[SigFox]. Semtech LoRa [LoRa] uses a direct-sequence spread-spectrum
with orthogonal codes (OSSS).
Both approaches have their advantages and will coexist in the future,
as there are currently several operators, which deploy the two types
in the same areas.
2.2. Physical Layer Characteristics
At the physical layer, the important part is the possibility to
reconstruct the signal at long distances. The used ISM bands are
defined around the world (e.g. 868 MHz in Europe and 900 MHz in USA)
and require a 1% (or 10%) duty cycling, or alternatively - advanced
detection and channel reallocation techniques. In reality, all
deployed networks use the duty cycling limitation, with the following
distinction. There is one 100kHz band in which 10% duty cycling is
allowed, with a slightly more emission power. The rest of the bands
are limited at 1% duty cycling and very restricted power of emission
(e.g. 25 mW in Europe).
UNB LP-WANs make the distinction between Uplink and Downlink, first
depending on the modulation, and second with the 10% duty-cycling
channel been used for the Downlink. OSSS LP-WANs make no such
distinction, although for the operation of a network, an operator can
chose to use the same Uplink/Downlink channel separation.
Note that the 1% or 10% duty-cycle limitation counts for all trafic
originating from an electronic equipment, e.g. an antena managing
100k objects must obey the same limitation as an end-device, with all
Pelov, et al. Expires August 20, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Constrained Signaling Over LP-WAN February 2016
frames emitted from the antena (data, acknowledgements) counting
towards its quota.
2.2.1. Ultra Narrowband LP-WAN radios
Ultra Narrowband (UNB) technologies generally possess the following
physical layer characteristics [LTN003]:
o Uplink:
* channelization mask 100kHz (600 kHz USA)
* baud rate 100 bauds (600 bauds USA)
* modulation BPSK
o Downlink:
* channelization mask: dynamic selection
* down link baud rate: 600 baud
* modulation scheme: GFSK
* downlink transmission power: 500 mW, 10% duty cycle
2.2.2. Spread-spectrum LP-WAN radios
OSSS technologies possess the following physical layer
characteristics [LTN003]:
o channelization mask: from 8 kHz to 500 kHz (depending on spreading
factor)
o chip rate: 8 kcps up to 500 kcps
o data rate: 30-50 000 bps
o modulation scheme: equivalent to DSSS with orthogonal signaling
No particular distinction is made between the Uplink and the
Downlink.
2.3. MAC Layer Characteristics
Several proprietary MAC frame formats exist for UNB and OSSS.
However, they are designed to operate the network in a centralized,
highly-vertically-integrated fashion. The only standard MAC frame
Pelov, et al. Expires August 20, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Constrained Signaling Over LP-WAN February 2016
format is the IEEE 802.15.4k, which is based on the well-known IEEE
802.15.4 with the addition of a fragmentation sub-layer.
The channel access method is based on ALOHA, although it is up to the
network operator to chose if an appropriate end-node polling should
be implemented.
3. CoSOL Architecture
3.1. General LP-WAN architecture
We can identify three types of entities in a typical LP-WAN. These
are:
o Node-F: far-reachable node, e.g. the end-point, object, device.
o Node-R: radio relay, bridging the LP-WAN radio technology to a
different medium (often a LAN or cellular WAN).
o Node-G: gateway node, interconnection between the radio-relay node
and the Internet.
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| Node-F | <-- LP-WAN radio --> | Node-R | <-- IP --> | Node-G |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
General architecture of an LP-WAN. LP-WAN radio technology is used
only between the Node-F and the Node-R.
Figure 1
Of these, only Node-F and Node-R communicate through an LP-WAN radio
technology. However, due to the extreme constraints of these
technologies, they are always behind a gateway (Node-G). Note, that
the Node-R and Node-G can be collocated, e.g. on a single hardware
equipment.
The Node-G is connected to the Internet and is assumed to have
sufficient computational resources to store a context for each of the
Node-Fs. The strong limitation here is the radio link.
In an actual deployment, a (limited) set of Node-Rs cover a large
area with a potentially very-high number of Node-Fs. A single Node-G
is capable of controlling all Node-Rs.
Pelov, et al. Expires August 20, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Constrained Signaling Over LP-WAN February 2016
o
o o
o (((*)))-------\
o o |
o o |
o (((*)))---------------+------Node-G
o o |
o o |
o (((*)))-------------------+
o |
o o o o |
o (((*)))-----------/
o o
o o
o = Node-F
(((*))) = Node-R
An example coverage of an area with several Node-Rs. Note that a
single Node-F may be covered by several Node-Rs.
Figure 2
3.2. Node-F lifecycle
Similar to other wireless infrastructure-based technologies, a Node-F
can go through several stages:
o Semi-Association
o Network Discovery
o Association
o Authentication
o Dissociation
The Node-F state machine is then the following:
Pelov, et al. Expires August 20, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Constrained Signaling Over LP-WAN February 2016
+------------------------------------------------------+
| |
V |
Semi-associated |
| |
V |
Disconnected <-> Network discovery -> Associated -> Authenticated
^ | |
| | |
+------------------------------------------------------+
Node-F connectivity state machine.
Figure 3
The Node-F can be in Semi-Associated mode. Upon start, and depending
on the application, a Node-F can use a state of uni-directional
communication, where it is considered semi-associated to the network.
In that state, the Node-F broadcasts frames, handled by the Node-G,
but the network cannot join the Node-F on a regular basis. This is a
degraded LP-WAN operating mode and if caution is not used, can lead
to significant scalability and evolvability issues.
The Network Discovery can be reactive or proactive. The former is
based on detecting beacon frames sent periodically by the network
(e.g. Node-G). The latter is implemented by the Node-F broadcasting
probe request frames, to which all appropriate Node-Gs must respond.
Once a network has been discovered, the Node-F can associate to the
network. The association creates the necessary (minimal) context on
the Node-G, which initiates the authentication of the Node-F
The authentication is initiated by the Node-G, which should allow for
the necessary AAA exchanges to take place. If the authentication is
successful, the Node-F enters the Authenticated state. In this stage
there is bi-directional communication between the Node-F and the
Node-G. If the authentication is not successful, the Node-F enters
Disconnected state. Once in Authenticated state, the Node-F can
downgrade its connectivity to Semi-Associated mode.
The management of the node in Authenticated state is performed with
COOL [I-D.veillette-core-cool]. As an example, managing the
parameters of a Semtech LoRa device can be achieved through the use
of the YANG module defined in [I-D.pelov-yang-lora]
Finally, the Node-F may decide to dissociate from the network by
sending an explicit request. Upon dissociation the Node-G may
release all contexts related to the Node-F and re-association
Pelov, et al. Expires August 20, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Constrained Signaling Over LP-WAN February 2016
requires going through the authentication stage again. Node mobility
is achieved by explicitly dissociating from the old Node-G and then
authenticating to the new Node-G. Implicit dissociation is also
possible upon the expiration of predefined timers, or in case of
mobility optimization.
3.3. CoAP as Signaling Protocol for LP-WANs
Use as CoAP for signaling is implemented as follows. The MAC,
network and/or transport layers MUST provide a mechanism to
differentiate user data from signaling data frames (e.g. by using
separate MAC addresses, IP addresses and/or UDP-ports). Both the
Node-G and the Node-F are running CoAP servers for implementing the
control plane. Frames exchanged over the LP-WAN radio interface and
marked as "signaling data" are handled by the corresponding control
plane CoAP servers.
The Node-G runs a (virtual) CoAP server for each Node-F. This server
is identified with a DNS name, e.g. "node123.home.node-
g.example.com", which can be used explicitly in the CoAP messages via
the Proxy-Uri option if needed.
Note, that the Node-R acts only as a transceiver and as such is
transparent from protocol point of view. As such, the following
management scheme applies:
+--------+ +--------+
| Node-F | <-- LP-WAN constraints --> | Node-G |
+--------+ +--------+
Node-F connectivity from protocol point of view.
Figure 4
3.3.1. Semi-Association
When in a semi-associated state, a Node-F broadcasts its messages
without performing network discovery, or association. If the Node-F
is under the coverage of a Node-G, the Node-G will receive the
broadcast, and forward the user data. The frames SHOULD be signed,
so that they could be authenticated by the network. Layer 2
acknowledgements MUST be used, and in some cases piggybacking on them
can provoke the Node-F to associate to the network.
The broadcast messages MUST include the necessary information to join
the user data destination, and enough information for the Node-G to
authenticate the message sender. This can be achieved through a
Confirmable CoAP message, where the user data are POSTed to a well-
Pelov, et al. Expires August 20, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Constrained Signaling Over LP-WAN February 2016
known resource defined on the Node-G. DTLS with integrity check can
be used, with long-lived keys negotiated by the Node-F and the
network. Alternatively, COSE objects may provide the necessary
mechanisms.
Even though an application can be implemented by using only simplex
association capabilities, there are non-negligible negative
consequences related to scalability and evolvability in this case.
For example, a Node-F which periodically broadcasts information will
occupy the spectrum, even if there is no operator willing to accept
its trafic. In addition, no channel access management can be
applied.
Node-F Node-G
| |
| |
+--------->| Header: POST
| POST | Uri-Host: "destination.example.com"
| | Uri-Path: "temp"
| |
| |
|<---------+ Header: 2.01 Created
| 2.01 |
| |
| |
Sending a message in a semi-associated state.
Figure 5
3.3.2. Network Discovery
A network can be discovered by a Node-F reactively or proactively.
Reactive network discovery is based on the detection of periodic
beacons emitted by the Node-G. The beacons are implemented with CoAP
messages with the No-Response option
[I-D.tcs-coap-no-response-option]. The Node-G POSTs its information
to a well-known resource, e.g. "/network/node-G/" or a resource alias
"/g". Alternatively, this could be achieved by POST-ting to a COOL
container (e.g. POST /cool with data node ID = 1 for example).
Pelov, et al. Expires August 20, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Constrained Signaling Over LP-WAN February 2016
Node-F Node-G
| |
| |
|<---------+ Header: POST
| POST /g | Uri-Path: "g"
| | [No-Responce]
| |
| |
Reactive network discovery. The Node-G sends periodically beacon
messages, containing information pertinent to this network.
Figure 6
The CoAP POST request is processed at the Node-F. A resource is
created locally, with the representation, which provides the
appropriate network parameters, e.g. network ID, Node-G ID, and other
radio-related parameters, such as channel, beacon frequency and so
forth. This information allows the Node-F to begin the
authentication phase.
A Node-F may chose to proactively probe for the existence of network
coverage. In that case, it sends a Confirmable CoAP GET request to
obtain the information from a well-known resource, normally published
by the beacon messages, e.g. "/network/node-G/" or a resource alias
"/g" or COOL data node ID ("/cool" data node ID = 2 for example).
Node-F Node-G
| |
| |
+--------->| Header: GET
| GET /g | Uri-Path: "g"
| | Accept: application/cbor
| |
| |
|<---------+ Header: 2.05 Content
| 2.05 | Payload: ...
| |
Proactive network discovery. The Node-F request the information of
all surrounding Node-Gs.
Figure 7
Once the network is discovered, the Node-F has all necessary
information to start the authentication phase.
Pelov, et al. Expires August 20, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Constrained Signaling Over LP-WAN February 2016
3.3.3. Association
Before being able to communicate, the Node-F must associate to the
network, and then eventually authenticate. The association phase
signals to the Node-G that there is a new device willing to
communicate with the network. This association SHOULD provide enough
information to allow the Node-G to start the authentication process.
For example, it may provide the AAA server, which could authenticate
the Node-F, or its EAP-Identity. Note, that the Node-F may elect to
mark the association message with the No-response option
[I-D.tcs-coap-no-response-option], waiting for the subsequent
authentication request from the Node-G.
Node-F Node-G
| |
| |
+--------->| Header: POST
| POST /n | Uri-Path: "n"
| | Payload: ...
| |
|<---------+ Header: 2.01 Created
| 2.01 | Location-Path: "/n/n705"
| |
Node-F associates to a network, by creating a corresponding resource
element on the Node-G.
Figure 8
3.3.4. Authentication
The EAP-over-CoAP [I-D.marin-ace-wg-coap-eap] specifies an approach
to encapsulating EAP messages over CoAP. This allows to authenticate
a Node-F, which wishes to join an LP-WAN, and negotiate the L2
encryption keys, and DTLS keying material.
As the Node-F has already associated to the Node-G, it is the Node-G
that initiates the authentification request, by going directly to
Step 1) of the EAP-over-CoAP specification.
Pelov, et al. Expires August 20, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Constrained Signaling Over LP-WAN February 2016
Node-F Node-G
| |
| |
1) |<-----------+ Header: POST
| POST /auth | Uri-Path: "auth"
| | [No-Responce]
| |
| |
2) +----------->| Header: 2.01 Created
| ACK /auth | Location-Path: "/auth/5"
| |
| |
| |
3) |<-----------+ Header: PUT
| PUT /auth/5| Uri-Path: "auth/5"
| | Payload: EAP-PSK MSG 1
| |
| |
4) +----------->| Header: 2.04 Changed
| ACK /auth/5| Payload: EAP-PSK MSG 2
| |
......
Node-F and Node-G perform mutual authentication following EAP-over-
CoAP.
Figure 9
Upon the end of the authentication phase, a Master Shared Key (MSK)
is known by the Node-F and the Node-G, and is used to generate DTLS
encryption or integrity keys. Further communications should be
encrypted/signed with the freshly derived keys.
3.3.5. Operation
Once the Node-F is authenticated to the network, it can send user
data via the Node-G to any other end-point on the Internet.
During the operation of the Node-F, the network may need to change
one or more parameters concerning the LP-WAN radio parameters of the
Node-F. These changes may even concern parameters related to the
Node-F itself (such as sleep cycles), its network parameters (e.g.
IP addresses), and so forth. This is achieved through the use of
COOL [I-D.veillette-core-cool]. The appropriate YANG modules must be
present on the Node-F (e.g. a Semtech LoRa Node-F should implement
the [I-D.pelov-yang-lora] module).
Pelov, et al. Expires August 20, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Constrained Signaling Over LP-WAN February 2016
Node-F Node-G
| |
| |
|<-----------+ Header: PUT
| PUT /cool | Uri-Path: "cool"
| | Payload: {5:10,6:2}
| |
| |
+----------->| Header: 2.04 Changed
| 2.04 |
| |
Example, in which the Node-G changes the Spreading Factor (e.g. COOL
data node ID = 5) to 10, and the Channel (e.g. COOL data node ID =
6) to 2. Note, that the payload is encoded in CBOR.
Figure 10
3.3.6. Dissociation
If the Node-F wishes to deregister from the network, it could do so
by deleting the context created upon association:
Node-F Node-G
| |
| |
+--------------->| Header: POST
| DELETE /n/n705 | Uri-Path: "n/n705"
| |
| |
|<---------------+ Header: 2.02 Deleted
| 2.02 |
| |
Node-F dissociates from the network by deleting its associated
resources.
Figure 11
4. Acknowledgements
5. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
Pelov, et al. Expires August 20, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Constrained Signaling Over LP-WAN February 2016
6. Security Considerations
All drafts are required to have a security considerations section.
See RFC 3552 [RFC3552] for a guide.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-core-observe]
Hartke, K., "Observing Resources in CoAP", draft-ietf-
core-observe-16 (work in progress), December 2014.
[I-D.marin-ace-wg-coap-eap]
Garcia, D., "EAP-based Authentication Service for CoAP",
draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap-01 (work in progress), October
2014.
[I-D.pelov-yang-lora]
Pelov, A., Toutain, L., Delibie, Y., and A. Minaburo,
"YANG module for LoRa Networks", draft-pelov-yang-lora-00
(work in progress), December 2015.
[I-D.tcs-coap-no-response-option]
Bhattacharyya, A., Bandyopadhyay, S., Pal, A., and T.
Bose, "CoAP option for no server-response", draft-tcs-
coap-no-response-option-13 (work in progress), November
2015.
[I-D.veillette-core-cool]
Veillette, M. and A. Pelov, "Constrained Objects
Language", draft-veillette-core-cool-00 (work in
progress), November 2015.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
Pelov, et al. Expires August 20, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Constrained Signaling Over LP-WAN February 2016
7.2. Informative References
[IEEE.802-15.4k]
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "Low-
Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR-WPANs) -
Amendment 5: Physical Layer Specifications for Low Energy,
Critical Infrastructure Monitoring Networks., IEEE
802.15.4k", IEEE Standard 802.15.4, 2013.
[LoRa] Semtech, "https://web.archive.org/web/20150510011904/
https://www.semtech.com/wireless-rf/lora.html", May 2015.
[LTN001] European Telecommunications Standards Institute, "Low
Throughput Networks (LTN); Use Cases for Low Throughput
Networks, ETSI GS LTN 001", IEEE ETSI GS LTN 001, 2014.
[LTN003] European Telecommunications Standards Institute, "Low
Throughput Networks (LTN); Protocols and Interfaces, ETSI
GS LTN 003", IEEE ETSI GS LTN 003, 2014.
[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3552>.
[SigFox] SigFox, "https://web.archive.org/web/20150628225901/
http://www.sigfox.com/en/#!/technology", June 2015.
Authors' Addresses
Alexander Pelov (editor)
Acklio
2bis rue de la Chataigneraie
Cesson-Sevigne, Bretagne 35510
FR
Email: a@ackl.io
Laurent Toutain (editor)
Institut MINES-TELECOM ; TELECOM Bretagne
2 rue de la Chataigneraie
Cesson-Sevigne, Bretagne 35510
FR
Email: laurent.toutain@telecom-bretagne.eu
Pelov, et al. Expires August 20, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Constrained Signaling Over LP-WAN February 2016
Yannick Delibie (editor)
Kerlink
1 rue Jacqueline Auriol
Thorigne-Fouillard, Bretagne 35235
FR
Email: yannick.delibie@kerlink.fr
Pelov, et al. Expires August 20, 2016 [Page 18]
