Internet DRAFT - draft-ramos-schc-zero-energy-devices
draft-ramos-schc-zero-energy-devices
SCHC Working Group E. Ramos
Internet-Draft L. Corneo
Intended status: Informational Ericsson
Expires: 25 April 2024 A. Minaburo
Consultant
23 October 2023
Static Context Header Compression and Fragmentation for Zero Energy
Devices
draft-ramos-schc-zero-energy-devices-00
Abstract
This document describes the use of SCHC for very constraint devices.
The use of SCHC will bring connectivity to devices with restrained
use of battery and long delays.
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 25 April 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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.
Ramos, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SCHC for Zero Energy Devices October 2023
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Zero Energy Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Cellular Based ZE-Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. 3GPP device classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.2. 3GPP ZE IoT topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2.1. Topology 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2.2. Topology 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.3. Topology 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.4. Topology 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. User plane characteristics for a Cellular ZE-devices . . 6
4.3.1. End-to-end view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. SCHC as a size and delay-optimized transmission
mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4.1. General architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4.2. Device-initiated transmissions . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4.3. Network initiated transmission . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5. SCHC context configuration and additional parameters for ZE
transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5.1. Context provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5.2. Context updating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.5.3. Payload compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.5.4. Fragmentation parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
Zero Energy (ZE) devices are wireless host used in an IoT
applications using harvesting energy. These devices can be connected
in different topologies and will require a new infrastructure that
maintains the connection alive during the long delays these hosts use
for communicate. This document explains the different topologies and
how SCHC can improve the communication in an 3GPP network. ToDo,
(REPLACE).
This document normatively references [RFC5234] and has more
information in 3GPPdocA and 3GPPdocB. (REPLACE)
Ramos, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SCHC for Zero Energy Devices October 2023
2. Conventions and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Zero Energy Devices
Zero Energy (ZE) devices are ultra-low-power small electronic
circuits that can be used in Internet of Things (IoT) applications.
Typically, a ZE device solely relies on the energy that is harvested
from the surrounding environment through an energy harvester, e.g., a
small solar panel or Radio Frequencies (RF). The harvested energy is
often stored in small rechargeable batteries or super-capacitors.
However, the most constrained ZE devices are completely passive and
could lack energy storage. ZE energy devices typically contain
sensors, e.g., temperature, as well as a radio interface to offload
sensor readings.
ZE devices do not require any battery replacement, or manual
charging, as they harvest energy from their surrounding environment.
ZE devices might be small, and come in the form of sensors (which
report on data from readings and measurements), trackers (which
report on the location of an object or a living being), or actuators
(which prompt other machines to operate).
The widespread adoption of ZE devices will lead to a massive
reduction in both the cost and power needed to run and maintain IoT
systems, making them more scalable. Gathering data from these
devices also has the potential to drive higher productivity,
pollution reduction, and enriched lifestyles, without requiring any
additional energy. Furthermore, battery-less devices are better for
the environment and can be managed with simple processes, from
manufacturing to disposal.
4. Cellular Based ZE-Devices
4.1. 3GPP device classification
At the time of writing, the 3GPP TR 38.848 collects decisions
regarding "Ambient IoT", which is another name for ZE IoT used
throughout this draft. In that document, three different types of ZE
devices are specified based on their energy storage capacity and
their RF transmission capabilities.
Ramos, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SCHC for Zero Energy Devices October 2023
* Device type A: Fully passive devices, without any energy storage
capability. The peak power consumption is expected to be less
than 10 uW. The wireless communication technology used is
backscatter communication.
* Device type B. Semi-passive devices with limited energy storage,
e.g., super-capacitor or coin-cell battery. The peak power
consumption is expected to be in the order of few hundreds of uW.
The wireless communication technology used is backscatter
communication with the stored energy possible to be used for
amplification of the backscattered signal.
* Device type C. Active devices with energy storage. The peak
power consumption is expected to be less than 10 mW. The wireless
communication technology used is active communication and
independent signal generation.
The type of devices A, B, and C are able to demodulate control, data,
etc from the relevant entity in RAN according to connectivity
topology.
4.2. 3GPP ZE IoT topologies
3GPP currently discusses four topologies to enable communication
between ZE devices and the cellular network. Most capable ZE devices
may be able to communicate directly with a base station (BS). On the
other hand, more constrained ZE devices may need the assistance of
intermediary nodes, for example, to provide carrier signals or energy
to excite and power up the device. We would focus so far on the
topology 1 in this document.
4.2.1. Topology 1
In Topology 1, see Figure 1, the ZE device directly and
bidirectionally communicates with a base station (BS). The
communication between the BS and the ZE device includes device data
and/or signaling.
+----+ +----+
| BS | <---> | ZE |
+----+ +----+
Figure 1: Topology 1. The base station (BS) and ZE device
communicate directly.
Ramos, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SCHC for Zero Energy Devices October 2023
4.2.2. Topology 2
In Topology 2, see Figure 2, the ZE device communicates
bidirectionally with an intermediate node (IN) between the device and
BS. In this topology, the intermediate node can be a ZE-enabled
relay, such as a user equipment (UE), meaning other mobile device or
equipment, or a repeater. The IN transfers ZE data and/or signaling
between BS and the ZE device.
+----+ Uu +----+ +----+
| BS | <---> | IN | <---> | ZE |
+----+ +----+ +----+
Figure 2: Topology 2. The base station (BS) and ZE device
communicate through an intermediary node (IN).
4.2.3. Topology 3
In Topology 3, see Figure 3 and Figure 4, the ZE device transmits
data/signalling to a BS, and receives data/signalling from the
assisting node (AN). Alternatively, the ZE device receives data/
signaling from a BS and transmits data/signaling to the AN. In this
topology, the AN can be a ZE-enabled relay, for example, another UE.
+----+ Uu +----+
| BS |--------->| AN |
+----+ +----+
^ |
| +----+ |
+----| ZE |<----+
+----+
Figure 3: Topology 3 (downlink assistance). The base station
(BS) utilizes an assisting node (AN) to transmit data to the ZE
device.
+----+ Uu +----+
| BS |<---------| AN |
+----+ +----+
| ^
| +----+ |
+--->| ZE |-----+
+----+
Figure 4: Topology 3 (uplink assistance). An assisting node (AN)
relays to the base station (BS) the ZE UL transmission.
Ramos, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SCHC for Zero Energy Devices October 2023
4.2.4. Topology 4
In Topology 4, see Figure 5, the ZE device communicates
bidirectionally with a UE. The communication between UE and the ZE
device includes ZE data and/or signaling.
+----+ +----+
| UE | <---> | ZE |
+----+ +----+
Figure 5: Topology 4. A user equipment (UE) and ZE device
communicate directly.
4.3. User plane characteristics for a Cellular ZE-devices
The nature of the ZE devices requires some changes in the
architecture of the radio network protocol stack to minimize the
power consumption on the transmissions and simplify operations. The
reception of data, even control signaling, also requires energy.
In a design for ZE devices design, the energy that is harvested is
preferred to be used for the device's transmissions. Since the ZE
devices are expected to have highly uplink-dominated traffic, and
therefore the minimization of downlink transmissions (including
feedback) can be anticipated.
Also, the transmission opportunities and characteristics require that
the handling of the packets is tolerant to delays in the reception
and reassembling due to the inherent unreliability of the source of
power for such transmissions. Even so, these devices coexist with
legacy and the more capable devices that will be utilizing the same
mobile networks, and the changes should be compatible with the type
of equipment that is typically utilized for cellular networks to
favor adoption and economy of scale.
Due to the restricted power on ZE devices, the user plane is expected
to be simplified and optimized to reduce the overhead and the need
for handling multiple levels of feedback. The power restriction
itself and the possible lack of link adaptation and reduction of the
feedback might increase the probability of packet loss and in some
scenarios also the probability of interference. This is due to the
deployment of many devices in close vicinity that are power-charged
by the same type of energy source and therefore possibly activated
simultaneously, which may cause access collision to the network as
well as interference to other cells.
Ramos, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SCHC for Zero Energy Devices October 2023
The mentioned restrictions make the design of the user plane for
these kinds of devices is challenging and requires compromises on the
current design. This would imply an iterative approach on what
components and procedures are kept and which ones are new with
respect to the regular cellular devices' operation.
For example, to increase the efficiency, the transmissions may be
done at the same time as accessing the network, meaning the
utilization of the RACH (Random Access Channel) to reduce the control
signaling. Transmissions using RACH are susceptible to collision
since they are mostly multiplexed by preambles and timing chosen
randomly by the device and currently are not scheduled as the
traditional user plane transmission are. The minimization of
downlink signaling may have an impact on the possibility of having
scheduled traffic, in addition to the impossibility of the network of
knowing if a device has enough energy to monitor a particular
downlink signaling channel.
The need to reduce overhead and optimize the number of bits over the
air to reduce the power required to transmit is a clear requirement
of the ZE devices. Consequently, the use of SCHC (Static Context
Header Compression) [RFC8724] has a great potential to reduce the
quantity of data needed to be sent over the air, as well as provide
elements that can be used to increase reliability, support for
fragmentation, and potentially manage the problem of the long delays
between transmissions. The delays may happen when a device has just
enough energy for transmitting certain packets but not enough to
empty the buffer. Part of the energy might be needed for the
reception of packets from the network.
The network is capable of managing the possibility that a full object
might not be received soon after a transmission is started. This
increases the requirement of how long the fragments and packet might
need to be kept in buffers, so it is avoided to lose the energy that
the devices have used in the initial transmission(s). This enables
that the device can continue with the rest of the packets once the
power for a new transmission has been harvested. Of course, the
buffers should be stored as long as it makes sense for the use case
of the device, and therefore it might require certain degree of
configuration, in some cases at the devices and in others at the
network, or both.
The possibility of collisions between transmissions and the lack of
power control and link adaptation may affect the reliability of the
delivery of packets. But still, the restriction of power for
transmitting and reception and the delays make challenging the
support for reliability based on retransmissions. In this respect,
we could think that there is a tradeoff between the reliability and
Ramos, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SCHC for Zero Energy Devices October 2023
additional delay in receiving the data. In some scenarios, these
delays could make sense and in others, the delay could make the
packets irrelevant to their use case. In that sense equally to the
previous point, the configuration of the delays targeting for
reliability is important.
From the required characteristics outlined for the user plane, the
use of SCHC becomes relevant to fulfill them. SCHC offers fragmented
packet corruption detection, and delivery reliability window-based
mechanisms, such as ACK-always (Each fragment delivery is explicitly
acknowledged) and ACK-on Error (only detected losses trigger delivery
reports outlining the fragment loss).
The requirements can be addressed with some additional complements to
support the deployment of SCHC into the cellular Zero Energy device
scenarios. For example, adding support for object transport in
contrast to only IP packet support, and providing better management
of long delays. In addition, a solution to enable the set up of the
contexts and rules that make sure there is alignment between the
network and the devices on the management of packets. Part of this
can be accomplished by imagining that a complete object fits an
imaginary jumbo IP package and SCHC would then fragment such packet
into pieces that can be fitted in the radio transport block.
In this way, a great part of the overhead is removed and the SCHC
services would take care of the reliability and delay-friendly
transmission of packets. In addition, there is the possibility of
integrating even further SCHC to the cellular lower protocol layers,
for example by not relying on feedback from MAC for the reliability
of transmission of packets but instead using the fragment bitmap from
SCHC. This also may improve the power efficiency of each
transmission since the device does not need to monitor the feedback
channel after each transmission.
The big challenge in using SCHC in this fashion is how to configure
the SCHC fragmentation and reassembly entities. A Dev using SCHC and
the endpoint where SCHC is terminated in the network with the
relevant context information so the transmitter and the receiver have
an understanding of what are the parameters of operation for this
particular case, which would depend on the network load and devices
power availability for transmission and the maximum allowed delay
configuration.
Ramos, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SCHC for Zero Energy Devices October 2023
4.3.1. End-to-end view
The traffic characteristics of ZE devices and their use case might
drive the development of the end-to-end interactions and protocol
stack. In mostly uplink-dominated cases, the device would produce
information that needs to be collected due to the potential delays by
a platform instead of being transmitted to a particular application
due to the requirement of availability. In the case of applications
using the generated data, would in most cases fetch the data from
such platforms, and therefore the connectivity towards the final
application might not be direct. Therefore, it is highly probable
that the direct communication stack can in most cases be assumed to
be mediated by a data collection platform.
One option is that such a platform is provided by operators. In that
case, it makes sense to incorporate SCHC as part of the protocol
stack between the network and the terminal. This option would
require some knowledge of the application protocol stack by the
mobile network so that effective compression can be realized. This
type of deployment would maximize the energy efficiency by optimizing
the compression up to the transport block level reducing additional
overhead from padding and lower layers headers. In this scenario the
application would only receive the payload whenever a packet or an
object is fully assembled, reducing the need for additional
implementation to application logic. When transmitting a complete
object in full, SCHC could be utilized in a similar way to a
transport protocol due to its fragmentation features. They enable
transmissions over long periods of time and reconstruct the full
object after receiving all fragments and also provide some
reliability control on the fragments transmitted.
Another option is the enabling of configurable data collection
platforms, which would imply providing SCHC support over the top in
the application layer. For this option, the SCHC packets would look
like non-IP traffic for the network, and the reliability of the
packets, delay management, and reassembling of fragments need to be
handled by the application. Therefore, the delays in transmissions
and changes in network connection points need to be handled and
accounted for.
4.4. SCHC as a size and delay-optimized transmission mechanism
SCHC mechanisms can be used to provide reliability and segmentation
and then extended to provide delay-tolerant transmissions of large
objects. This can be done by using the SCHC Fragmentation/Reassembly
mechanism Ack on Error [RFC8724] which divides the object into
smaller chunks called tiles that are transmitted according to a
network's scheduled occasions considering the device power saving and
Ramos, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SCHC for Zero Energy Devices October 2023
state configuration. The configuration and setup of SCHC object
transfer session considering the network and terminal states
according to the needs of each ZE device matching to their use case
becomes a critical functionality to address.
4.4.1. General architecture
The Figure 6 shows a high configuration of the network communication
between a ZE Device and an Application Server (App). ZE Dev have
short-live intermittent connections and need a middle host called
proxy that will maintain the connection state even the communication
is discontinued with the ZE Dev and a continue communication with the
Application Server. The proxy may answer to some request instead of
the ZE Dev.
+-------+ +-------+ +--------+
| | <---> | | <---> | |
| ZE | ... | Proxy | <---> | App. |
| Dev. |(delay) | (SCHC)| <---> | Server |
|(SCHC) | <---> | | <---> | (SCHC) |
| | ... | | <---> | |
+-------+ +-------+ +--------+
Figure 6: High Level Communication Architecture
4.4.2. Device-initiated transmissions
Once a device is onboarded into a network, or during the network
connection procedure, it must be configured with a new threshold
value MAX_OBJECT_SIZE, measured in bytes). This configuration could
be also pre-defined and notified to the network using out-of-band
methods. This is used to compare with the object size to be
transmitted. If the object size exceeds such threshold, it means
that it is required to operate with a delay-friendly transmission
configuration and it will use the most adequate SCHC delay values
that are capable of handling the object size to be transmitted by the
device. The most adequate configuration is such that can handle
(bigger or equal) the size of the object to be transmitted according
to the MAX_OBJECT_SIZE associated configuration.
To avoid collisions and help with the network management of multiple
devices accessing the network simultaneously, the configuration could
include a Best Effort Transfer Interval (BETI). A BETI configuration
is meant to provide pacing information to the SCHC device. After
each BETI the device attempts to transfer number of SCHC tiles. The
value of BETI could be based on a timer (send new fragment every X
second), transmission occasions (send every X occasion), or radio
events (paging, DRX/DTX cycle, etc.). Also, the values of BETI can
Ramos, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SCHC for Zero Energy Devices October 2023
be also determined by a random timer given by a configured range.
The number of tiles to send in each BETI, a Tile Count (TC)
parameter, is by default 1 but can be configured by the network to be
higher number.
The SCHC Rule for these devices may be a well-known rule that will
not need to be updated. If the Proxy has several devices attached,
it must recognize which one is sending.
4.4.3. Network initiated transmission
If there is a need for the network to transmit data to a device in
some cases may require transmitting to a large number of devices and
potentially even the same network delivery points (e.g., radio base
stations). To accomplish this in a scenario where the compressor
entity is in the cellular network, it will need to have a copy of the
object to be delivered to the device to transmit it to the device
according to a suitable scheduling and agreed configuration. As
mentioned before, this would require the network to provide APIs to
Applications Servers (AS) that either provide an interface to upload
to the network the object to be transferred beforehand or a proxy IP
address for large object transfers that would buffer the object for
further transmission if the data were from the application layer.
The delivery may reuse the same mechanisms used to provide IP
tunneling transmissions or non-IP transmissions already specified in
the cellular standards.
4.5. SCHC context configuration and additional parameters for ZE
transmission
4.5.1. Context provisioning
SCHC successful header compression happens only when a common context
is shared between sender and receiver. Typically, context
provisioning is outside the scope of SCHC RFC documents, mainly
because there may be several ways to implement it. However, the most
constrained ZE devices, e.g., 3GPP ZE type 0, may not be able to
receive packets from the network, thus dramatically restricting
context provisioning possibilities. Hence, this document also
discusses how a SCHC context may be provisioned to ZE devices with no
reception capabilities.
Discussion of the possibilities:
Ramos, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SCHC for Zero Energy Devices October 2023
* Standardized set of rules that ZE device manufacturers include in
their firmware. Viable solution but may lead to even more
heterogeneity in the IoT ecosystem. In fact, different vendors
may support different non-overlapping subsets of SCHC contexts or
none at all.
* Third-party entities or device owners upload and maintain the SCHC
contexts, for example flashing the MCU. Manual process and not
really scalable.
* NFC or equivalent interfaces for SCHC context provisioning. Add
costs for the interface, it is a non-scalable manual process.
* Use of a well-known rules, provisioned at device configuration.
4.5.2. Context updating
Since SCHC works with static context information, it is not likely
(or desired) to update the SCHC delay tolerant configurations very
often (e.g., more than once a week -- what exactly is "often" depends
on the device capabilities and typical communication frequency), so
the most feasible options are that the network would produce a set of
pre-configured configurations that are addressed individually with a
configuration ID. This means that the network could configure, for
example, rules for one device for maximum SCHC packet size large,
medium, and small and use three context groups where it applies this
parameter setting. In turn, the SCHC MAX_PACKET_SIZE will be set to
such values.
In the case of SCHC being utilized as a transport protocol to
transmit an object, the size of the tiles used to fragment the object
could be set to the MTU of the bearer where the transmission will be
realized, for example, if the data is transmitted using regular
transmission channels, the MTU would be 1358 bytes in most of the
cases. The SCHC standard fragmentation inactivity timers and
fragmentation retransmission timers can be also set according to the
scheduling calculation and the expected time of delivery (based on
the schedule) for the large packets. Those timers are applied to the
fragments that are transmitted and their acknowledgments.
The network can use the expected scheduling time for one of the rule
groups and set several parameters according to multiple scheduling
situations, for example, extra-long delay, long delay, medium delay,
sort delay, and no delay. In a situation with a delay configuration,
the retransmission timer and the inactivity timer would be set to a
reasonable value (e.g., 24 hours), meanwhile, in no delay settings,
the timers would be set to significantly smaller values (e.g., 10
minutes). The values of the timers would be also correlated to the
Ramos, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SCHC for Zero Energy Devices October 2023
SCHC window (i.e., successive tiles in a group) size selected which
translates to how many transmissions of the tiles are expected to
check the correct reception of the tiles belonging to one window.
Shorter timers would correspond to shorter window sizes (i.e., a
smaller number of tiles would be sent, and hence shorter
retransmission/inactivity time is appropriate), meanwhile, larger
timer values would correspond to larger window sizes. The window
size would also depend on how many tiles the object is fragmented
into.
The profile also would have information in reference to the maximum
number of Attempts, meaning how many retransmissions of one packet
(after the retransmission timer has expired) should be attempted
before aborting the transmission. In cases of devices with a history
of bad coverage (known from, e.g., connectivity logs for that
device), this setting could be set to a higher number (for example
10), and in more common cases for a cellular network where
reliability is high, to just one retransmission. Similarly, if the
uplink seems to be the problem, then the adjustment could be done in
the MAX_ACK_REQUESTS, where the sender would poll the receiver to
transmit a bitmap with the received packets if needed and retransmit
the request if the retransmit timer expires the number of times that
MAX_ACK_REQUESTS is configured to.
4.5.3. Payload compression
ToDo
4.5.4. Fragmentation parameters
ToDo
5. IANA considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
6. Security considerations
This document does not add any security considerations and follows
the [RFC8724].
7. 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>.
Ramos, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SCHC for Zero Energy Devices October 2023
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[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>.
[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>.
Appendix A. Appendix A
This becomes an Appendix (REPLACE)
Appendix B. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank (in alphabetic order): ToDo
Authors' Addresses
Edgar Ramos
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
FI- 02420 Jorvas, Kirkkonummi
Finland
Email: edgar.ramos@ericsson.com
Lorenzo Corneo
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
FI- 02420 Jorvas, Kirkkonummi
Finland
Email: lorenzo.corneo@ericsson.com
Ana Minaburo
Consultant
rue Rennes
35510 Cesson-Sevigne
France
Email: anaminaburo@gmail.com
Ramos, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 14]
