Internet DRAFT - draft-petrov-lpwan-ipv6-schc-over-lorawan
draft-petrov-lpwan-ipv6-schc-over-lorawan
lpwan Working Group N. Sornin, Ed.
Internet-Draft M. Coracin
Intended status: Informational Semtech
Expires: August 17, 2019 I. Petrov
Acklio
A. Yegin
Actility
J. Catalano
Kerlink
V. Audebert
EDF R&D
February 13, 2019
Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) over LoRaWAN
draft-petrov-lpwan-ipv6-schc-over-lorawan-03
Abstract
The Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) specification describes
generic header compression and fragmentation techniques for LPWAN
(Low Power Wide Area Networks) technologies. SCHC is a generic
mechanism designed for great flexibility, so that it can be adapted
for any of the LPWAN technologies.
This document provides the adaptation of SCHC for use in LoRaWAN
networks, and provides elements such as efficient parameterization
and modes of operation.
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 August 17, 2019.
Sornin, et al. Expires August 17, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SCHC-over-LoRaWAN February 2019
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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 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
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Static Context Header Compression Overview . . . . . . . . . 3
4. LoRaWAN Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Device classes (A, B, C) and interactions . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Device addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. General Message Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. LoRaWAN MAC Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. SCHC over LoRaWAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Rule ID management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. IID computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. No compression packets are sent using Rule ID 7. . . . . 8
5.4. Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4.1. Uplink fragmentation: From device to gateway . . . . 8
5.4.2. Downlinks: From gateway to device . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix B. Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
The Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) specification
[I-D.ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc] describes generic header
compression and fragmentation techniques that can be used on all
LPWAN (Low Power Wide Area Networks) technologies defined in
[I-D.ietf-lpwan-overview]. Even though those technologies share a
Sornin, et al. Expires August 17, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SCHC-over-LoRaWAN February 2019
great number of common features like start-oriented topologies,
network architecture, devices with mostly quite predictable
communications, etc; they do have some slight differences in respect
of payload sizes, reactiveness, etc.
SCHC gives a generic framework that enables those devices to
communicate with other Internet networks. However, for efficient
performance, some parameters and modes of operation need to be set
appropriately for each of the LPWAN technologies.
This document describes the efficient parameters and modes of
operation when SCHC is used over LoRaWAN networks.
2. Terminology
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 [RFC2119].
This section defines the terminology and acronyms used in this
document. For all other definitions, please look up the SCHC
specification [I-D.ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc].
o DevEUI: an IEEE EUI-64 identifier used to identify the device
during the procedure while joining the network (Join Procedure)
o DevAddr: a 32-bit non-unique identifier assigned to a device
statically or dynamically after a Join Procedure (depending on the
activation mode)
o TBD: all significant LoRaWAN-related terms.
3. Static Context Header Compression Overview
This section contains a short overview of Static Context Header
Compression (SCHC). For a detailed description, refer to the full
specification [I-D.ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc].
Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) avoids context
synchronization, which is the most bandwidth-consuming operation in
other header compression mechanisms such as RoHC [RFC5795]. Based on
the fact that the nature of data flows is highly predictable in LPWAN
networks, some static contexts may be stored on the Device (Dev).
The contexts must be stored in both ends, and it can either be
learned by a provisioning protocol or by out of band means or it can
be pre-provisioned, etc. The way the context is learned on both
sides is out of the scope of this document.
Sornin, et al. Expires August 17, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SCHC-over-LoRaWAN February 2019
Dev App
+--------------+ +--------------+
|APP1 APP2 APP3| |APP1 APP2 APP3|
| | | |
| UDP | | UDP |
| IPv6 | | IPv6 |
| | | |
| SCHC C/D | | |
| (context) | | |
+-------+------+ +-------+------+
| +--+ +----+ +---------+ .
+~~ |RG| === |NGW | === |SCHC C/D |... Internet ..
+--+ +----+ |(context)|
+---------+
Figure 1: Architecture
Figure 1 represents the architecture for compression/decompression,
it is based on [I-D.ietf-lpwan-overview] terminology. The Device is
sending applications flows using IPv6 or IPv6/UDP protocols. These
flows are compressed by an Static Context Header Compression
Compressor/Decompressor (SCHC C/D) to reduce headers size. Resulting
information is sent on a layer two (L2) frame to a LPWAN Radio
Network (RG) which forwards the frame to a Network Gateway (NGW).
The NGW sends the data to a SCHC C/D for decompression which shares
the same rules with the Dev. The SCHC C/D can be located on the
Network Gateway (NGW) or in another place as long as a tunnel is
established between the NGW and the SCHC C/D. The SCHC C/D in both
sides must share the same set of Rules. After decompression, the
packet can be sent on the Internet to one or several LPWAN
Application Servers (App).
The SCHC C/D process is bidirectional, so the same principles can be
applied in the other direction.
In a LoRaWAN network, the RG is called a Gateway, the NGW is Network
Server, and the SCHC C/D can be embedded in different places, for
example in the Network Server and/or the Application Server.
Next steps for this section: detailed overview of the LoRaWAN
architecture and its mapping to the SCHC architecture.
4. LoRaWAN Architecture
An overview of LoRaWAN [lora-alliance-spec] protocol and architecture
is described in [I-D.ietf-lpwan-overview]. Mapping between the LPWAN
architecture entities as described in
Sornin, et al. Expires August 17, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SCHC-over-LoRaWAN February 2019
[I-D.ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc] and the ones in
[lora-alliance-spec] is as follows:
o Devices (Dev) are the end-devices or hosts (e.g. sensors,
actuators, etc.). There can be a very high density of devices per
radio gateway. This entity maps to the LoRaWAN End-device.
o The Radio Gateway (RGW), which is the end point of the constrained
link. This entity maps to the LoRaWAN Gateway.
o The Network Gateway (NGW) is the interconnection node between the
Radio Gateway and the Internet. This entity maps to the LoRaWAN
Network Server.
o LPWAN-AAA Server, which controls the user authentication and the
applications. This entity maps to the LoRaWAN Join Server.
o Application Server (App). The same terminology is used in LoRaWAN.
() () () | +------+
() () () () / \ +---------+ | Join |
() () () () () / \======| ^ |===|Server| +-----------+
() () () | | <--|--> | +------+ |Application|
() () () () / \==========| v |=============| Server |
() () () / \ +---------+ +-----------+
End-Devices Gateways Network Server
Figure 2: LPWAN Architecture
SCHC C/D (Compressor/Decompressor) and SCHC Fragmentation are
performed on the LoRaWAN End-device and the Application Server.
While the point-to-point link between the End-device and the
Application Server constitutes single IP hop, the ultimate end-point
of the IP communication may be an Internet node beyond the
Application Server. In other words, the LoRaWAN Application Server
acts as the first hop IP router for the End-device. Note that the
Application Server and Network Server may be co-located, which
effectively turns the Network/Application Server into the first hop
IP router.
4.1. Device classes (A, B, C) and interactions
The LoRaWAN MAC layer supports 3 classes of devices named A,B and C.
All devices implement the classA, some devices implement classA+B or
class A+C. ClassB and classC are mutually exclusive.
Sornin, et al. Expires August 17, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SCHC-over-LoRaWAN February 2019
o *ClassA*: The classA is the simplest class of devices. The device
is allowed to transmit at any time, randomly selecting a
communication channel. The network may reply with a downlink in
one of the 2 receive windows immediately following the uplinks.
Therefore, the network cannot initiate a downlink, it has to wait
for the next uplink from the device to get a downlink opportunity.
The classA is the lowest power device class.
o *ClassB*: classB devices implement all the functionalities of
classA devices, but also schedule periodic listen windows.
Therefore, as opposed the classA devices, classB devices can
receive downlink that are initiated by the network and not
following an uplink. There is a trade-off between the periodicity
of those scheduled classB listen windows and the power consumption
of the device. The lower the downlink latency, the higher the
power consumption.
o *ClassC*: classC devices implement all the functionalities of
classA devices, but keep their receiver open whenever they are not
transmitting. ClassC devices can receive downlinks at any time at
the expense of a higher power consumption. Battery powered
devices can only operate in classC for a limited amount of time
(for example for a firmware upgrade over the air). Most of the
classC devices are main powered (for example Smart Plugs).
4.2. Device addressing
LoRaWAN devices use a 32bits network address (devAddr) to communicate
with the network over the air. However that address might be reused
several time on the same network at the same time for different
devices. Devices using the same devAddr are distinguish by the
network server based on the cryptographic signature appended to every
single LoRaWAN MAC frame, as all devices use different security keys.
To communicate with the SCHC gateway the network server MUST identify
the devices by a unique 64bits device ID called the devEUI. Unlike
devAddr, devEUI is guaranteed to be unique for every single device
across all networks. The devEUI is assigned to the device during the
manufacturing process by the device's manufacturer. The devEUI is
built like an Ethernet MAC address by concatenating the
manufacturer's IEEE 24bits OUI field with a 40bits serial number.
The network server translates the devAddr into a devEUI in the uplink
direction and reciprocally on the downlink direction.
Sornin, et al. Expires August 17, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SCHC-over-LoRaWAN February 2019
+--------+ +---------------+ +--------------------+
| device | <=====> | Network Server| <====> | Application Server |
+--------+ devAddr +---------------+ devEUI +--------------------+
Figure 3: LoRaWAN addresses
4.3. General Message Types
o Confirmed messages:
o Unconfirmed messages:
4.4. LoRaWAN MAC Frames
o JoinRequest
o JoinAccept
o Data
5. SCHC over LoRaWAN
5.1. Rule ID management
The LoRaWAN MAC layers features a port field in all frames. This
port field (FPort) is 8bit long and the values from 1 to 220 can be
used. SCHC over LoRaWAN uses 2 contiguous FPort value to separate
the uplink SCHC traffic from the downlink and avoid any confusion.
Those FPorts are called FPortUp and FPortDwn. Those FPorts can use
arbitrary values inside the allowed Fport range but must be shared by
the end-device and SCHC gateway.
SCHC over LoRAWAN SHOULD support encoding RuleID on 3 bits, there are
therefore 8 possible RuleIds on both uplink and downlink direction.
The RuleID 0 is reserved for fragmentation in both directions. The 7
remaining RuleIDs are available for IPV6 header compression. Uplink
(on FPortUp) and downlink (on FportDwn) RuleIDs are independent. The
same RuleID may have different meanings on the uplink and downlink
paths.
The only uplink messages using the FportDwn port are the
fragmentation SCHC ACKs messages of a downlink fragmentation session.
Similarly, the only downlink messages using the FportUp port are the
fragmentation SCHC ACKs messages of an uplink fragmentation session
Sornin, et al. Expires August 17, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SCHC-over-LoRaWAN February 2019
5.2. IID computation
TBD (To discuss with the SCHC authors).
5.3. No compression packets are sent using Rule ID 7.
5.4. Fragmentation
The L2 word size used by LoRaWAN is 1 octet (8 bits). The SCHC
fragmentation over LoRaWAN exclusively uses the ACK-always mode. A
LoRaWAN device cannot support simultaneous interleaved fragmentation
sessions in the same direction (uplink or downlink). This means that
only a single fragmented IPV6 datagram may be transmitted and/or
received by the device at a given moment. The fragmentation
parameters are different for uplink and downlink fragmentation
sessions and are successively described in the next sections.
5.4.1. Uplink fragmentation: From device to gateway
In that case the device is the fragmentation transmitter, and the
SCHC gateway the fragmentation receiver.
o SCHC fragmentation reliability mode : "ACK_ALWAYS"
o Window size: 8, the FCN field is encoded on 3 bits
o DTag : 1bit. this field is used to clearly separate two
consecutive fragmentation sessions. A LoRaWAN device cannot
interleave several fragmented SCHC datagrams.
o MIC calculation algorithm: CRC32 using 0xEDB88320 (i.e. the
reverse representation of the polynomial used e.g. in the Ethernet
standard [RFC3385])
o Retransmission Timer and inactivity Timer: LoRaWAN devices do not
implement a "retransmission timer". At the end of a window the
ACK corresponding to this window is transmitted by the network
gateway in the RX1 or RX2 receive slot of the device. If this ACK
is not received the device sends an all-0 (or an all-1) fragment
with no payload to request an ACK retransmission. The periodicity
between retransmission of the all-0/all-1 fragments is device/
application specific and may be different for each device (not
specified). The gateway implements an "inactivity timer". The
default recommended duration of this timer is 12h. This value is
mainly driven by application requirements and may be changed.
Sornin, et al. Expires August 17, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SCHC-over-LoRaWAN February 2019
| RuleID | DTag | W | FCN | Payload |
+ ------ + ----- + ----- | ------ + ------- +
| 3 bits | 1 bit | 1 bit | 3 bits | |
Figure 4: All fragment except the last one. Header size is 8 bits.
| RuleID | DTag | W | FCN | MIC | Payload |
+ ------ + ----- + ----- | ------ + ------- + ------- +
| 3 bits | 1 bit | 1 bit | 3 bits | 32 bits | |
Figure 5: All-1 fragment detailed format for the last fragment.
Header size is 8 bits.
The format of an all-0 or all-1 acknowledge is:
| RuleID | DTag | W | Encoded bitmap | Padding (0s) |
+ ------ + ----- + ----- | -------------- + ------------ +
| 3 bits | 1 bit | 1 bit | 3 or 8 bits | 0 or 3 bits |
Figure 6: ACK format for All-0 windows. Header size is 1 or 2 bytes.
| RuleID | DTag | W | C | Encoded bitmap (if C = 0) | Padding (0s) |
+ ------ + ----- + ----- + ----- + ------------------------- + ------------ +
| 3 bits | 1 bit | 1 bit | 1 bit | 2 or 8 bits | 0 or 2 bits |
Figure 7: ACK format for All-1 windows. Header size is 1 or 2 bytes.
5.4.2. Downlinks: From gateway to device
In that case the device is the fragmentation receiver, and the SCHC
gateway the fragmentation transmitter. The following fields are
common to all devices.
o SCHC fragmentation reliability mode : ACK_ALWAYS
o Window size : 1 , The FCN field is encoded on 1 bits
o DTag : 1bit. This field is used to clearly separate two
consecutive fragmentation sessions. A LoRaWAN device cannot
interleave several fragmented SCHC datagrams.
o MIC calculation algorithm: CRC32 using 0xEDB88320 (i.e. the
reverse representation of the polynomial used e.g. in the Ethernet
standard [RFC3385])
Sornin, et al. Expires August 17, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SCHC-over-LoRaWAN February 2019
o MAX_ACK_REQUESTS : 8
| RuleID | DTag | W | FCN | Payload |
+ ------ + ----- + ----- | ------ + ------- + ------- +
| 3 bits | 1 bit | 1 bit | 1 bits | X bytes + 2 bits |
Figure 8: All fragments but the last one. Header size is 6 bits.
| RuleID | DTag | W | FCN | MIC | Payload | Padding (0s) |
+ ------ + ----- + ----- | ------ + ------- + ------- + ------------ +
| 3 bits | 1 bit | 1 bit | 1 bits | 32 bits | X bytes | 0 to 7 bits |
Figure 9: All-1 Fragment Detailed Format for the Last Fragment.
Header size is 6 bits.
The format of an all-0 or all-1 acknowledge is:
| RuleID | DTag | W | Encoded bitmap | Padding (0s) |
+ ------ + ----- + ----- | -------------- + ------------ +
| 3 bits | 1 bit | 1 bit | 1 bit | 2 bits |
Figure 10: ACK format for All-0 windows. Header size is 8 bits.
| RuleID | DTag | W | C = 1 | Padding (0s) |
+ ------ + ----- + ----- + ----- + ------------ +
| 3 bits | 1 bit | 1 bit | 1 bit | 2 bits |
Figure 11: ACK format for All-1 windows, MIC is correct. Header size
is 8 bits.
| RuleID | DTag | W | b'111 | 0xFF (all 1's) |
+ ------ + ----- + ----- + ------ + -------------- +
| 3 bits | 1 bit | 1 bit | 3 bits | 8 bits |
Figure 12: Receiver ABORT packet (following an all-1 packet with
incorrect MIC). Header size is 16 bits.
Class A and classB&C devices do not manage retransmissions and timers
in the same way.
Sornin, et al. Expires August 17, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SCHC-over-LoRaWAN February 2019
5.4.2.1. Class A devices
Class A devices can only receive in an RX slot following the
transmission of an uplink. Therefore there cannot be a concept of
"retransmission timer" for a gateway talking to classA devices for
downlink fragmentation.
The device replies with an ACK fragment to every single fragment
received from the gateway (because the window size is 1). Following
the reception of a FCN=0 fragment (fragment that is not the last
fragment of the packet or ACK-request), the device MUST transmit the
ACK fragment until it receives the fragment of the next window. The
device shall transmit up to MAX_ACK_REQUESTS ACK fragments before
aborting. The device should transmit those ACK as soon as possible
while taking into consideration eventual local radio regulation on
duty-cycle, to progress the fragmentation session as quickly as
possible. The ACK bitmap is 1 bit long and is always 1.
Following the reception of a FCN=1 fragment (the last fragment of a
datagram) and if the MIC is correct, the device shall transmit the
ACK with the "MIC is correct" indicator bit set. This message might
be lost therefore the gateway may request a retransmission of this
ACK in the next downlink. The device SHALL keep this ACK message in
memory until it receives a downlink from the gateway different from
an ACK-request indicating that the gateway has received the ACK
message.
Following the reception of a FCN=1 fragment (the last fragment of a
datagram) and if the MIC is NOT correct, the device shall transmit a
receiver-ABORT fragment. The device SHALL keep this ABORT message in
memory until it receives a downlink from the gateway different from
an ACK-request indicating that the gateway has received the ABORT
message. The fragmentation receiver (device) does not implement
retransmission timer and inactivity timer.
The fragmentation sender (the gateway) implements an inactivity timer
with default duration 12 hours. Once a fragmentation session is
started, if the gateway has not received any ACK or receiver-ABORT
message 12 hours after the last message from the device was received,
the gateway may flush the fragmentation context. For devices with
very low transmission rates (example 1 packet a day in normal
operation) , that duration may be extended, but this is application
specific.
Sornin, et al. Expires August 17, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SCHC-over-LoRaWAN February 2019
5.4.2.2. Class B or C devices
Class B&C devices can receive in scheduled RX slots or in RX slots
following the transmission of an uplink. The device replies with an
ACK fragment to every single fragment received from the gateway
(because the window size is 1). Following the reception of a FCN=0
fragment (fragment that is not the last fragment of the packet or
ACK-request), the device MUST always transmit the corresponding ACK
fragment even if that fragment has already been received. The ACK
bitmap is 1 bit long and is always 1. If the gateway receives this
ACK, it proceeds to send the next window fragment If the
retransmission timer elapses and the gateway has not received the ACK
of the current window it retransmits the last fragment. The gateway
tries retransmitting up to MAX_ACK_REQUESTS times before aborting.
Following the reception of a FCN=1 fragment (the last fragment of a
datagram) and if the MIC is correct, the device shall transmit the
ACK with the "MIC is correct" indicator bit set. If the gateway
receives this ACK, the current fragmentation session has succeeded
and its context can be cleared.
If the retransmission timer elapses and the gateway has not received
the all-1 ACK it retransmits the last fragment with the payload (not
an ACK-request without payload). The gateway tries retransmitting up
to MAX_ACK_REQUESTS times before aborting.
The device SHALL keep the all-1 ACK message in memory until it
receives a downlink from the gateway different from the last (FCN=1)
fragment indicating that the gateway has received the ACK message.
Following the reception of a FCN=1 fragment (the last fragment of a
datagram) and if the MIC is NOT correct, the device shall transmit a
receiver-ABORT fragment. The retransmission timer is used by the
gateway (the sender), the optimal value is very much application
specific but here are some recommended default values. For classB
devices, this timer trigger is a function of the periodicity of the
classB ping slots. The recommended value is equal to 3 times the
classB ping slot periodicity. For classC devices which are nearly
constantly receiving, the recommended value is 30 seconds. This
means that the device shall try to transmit the ACK within 30 seconds
of the reception of each fragment. The inactivity timer is
implemented by the device to flush the context in-case it receives
nothing from the gateway over an extended period of time. The
recommended value is 12 hours for both classB&C devices.
Sornin, et al. Expires August 17, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SCHC-over-LoRaWAN February 2019
6. Security considerations
As this document is only providing parameters that are expected to be
better suited for LoRaWAN networks for
[I-D.ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc]. As such, this parameters
does not contribute to any new security issues in addition of those
identified in [I-D.ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc].
7. Acknowledgements
TBD
8. References
8.1. 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>.
[RFC3385] Sheinwald, D., Satran, J., Thaler, P., and V. Cavanna,
"Internet Protocol Small Computer System Interface (iSCSI)
Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC)/Checksum Considerations",
RFC 3385, DOI 10.17487/RFC3385, September 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3385>.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.
[RFC5795] Sandlund, K., Pelletier, G., and L-E. Jonsson, "The RObust
Header Compression (ROHC) Framework", RFC 5795,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5795, March 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5795>.
[RFC7136] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Significance of IPv6
Interface Identifiers", RFC 7136, DOI 10.17487/RFC7136,
February 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7136>.
8.2. Informative References
Sornin, et al. Expires August 17, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SCHC-over-LoRaWAN February 2019
[I-D.ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc]
Minaburo, A., Toutain, L., Gomez, C., Barthel, D., and J.
Zuniga, "LPWAN Static Context Header Compression (SCHC)
and fragmentation for IPv6 and UDP", draft-ietf-lpwan-
ipv6-static-context-hc-18 (work in progress), December
2018.
[I-D.ietf-lpwan-overview]
Farrell, S., "LPWAN Overview", draft-ietf-lpwan-
overview-10 (work in progress), February 2018.
[lora-alliance-spec]
Alliance, L., "LoRaWAN Specification Version V1.0.2",
<http://portal.lora-
alliance.org/DesktopModules/Inventures_Document/
FileDownload.aspx?ContentID=1398>.
Appendix A. Examples
Appendix B. Note
Authors' Addresses
Nicolas Sornin (editor)
Semtech
14 Chemin des Clos
Meylan
France
Email: nsornin@semtech.com
Michael Coracin
Semtech
14 Chemin des Clos
Meylan
France
Email: mcoracin@semtech.com
Ivaylo Petrov
Acklio
2bis rue de la Chataigneraie
35510 Cesson-Sevigne Cedex
France
Email: ivaylo@ackl.io
Sornin, et al. Expires August 17, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SCHC-over-LoRaWAN February 2019
Alper Yegin
Actility
.
Paris, Paris
France
Email: alper.yegin@actility.com
Julien Catalano
Kerlink
1 rue Jacqueline Auriol
35235 Thorigne-Fouillard
France
Email: j.catalano@kerlink.fr
Vincent AUDEBERT
EDF R&D
7 bd Gaspard Monge
91120 PALAISEAU
FRANCE
Email: vincent.audebert@edf.fr
Sornin, et al. Expires August 17, 2019 [Page 15]
