Subject: Re: [icnrg] Last Call: draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 22:46:44 +0000

Dirk,

This looks to be a well-written and detailed specification for an ICN adaptation to LowPAN networks. 

Drafts to be published as RFCs in the IRTF stream need to include various notices, as described in RFC 5743 Section 2.1. Some of those notices look to be missing from this draft and will need to be added before it can be published. 

It’s also important for a draft to be published as an Experimental RFC to be clear about what experiment being performed. Section 10 of the draft includes a brief implementation report, describing experiments that have been conducted using this protocol, which is good, but the draft says very little about what experiments remain to be done and what can be learnt from further experimental deployment of this protocol. Would it be possible to add some additional context about how this fits with ongoing experiments in this space?

Regards,
Colin

> On 22 Jan 2020, at 08:42, Dirk Kutscher <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hello ICNRG,
> 
> This is a last call for comments on draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan (ICN Adaptation to LowPAN Networks (ICN LoWPAN)).
> 
> We want to publish this as an Experimental RFC. Please read it and let us know if you think there are issues. The last call ends on February 7th, i.e., 2.5 weeks from today.
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan/
> 
> Abstract
>   This document defines a convergence layer for CCNx and NDN over IEEE
>   802.15.4 LoWPAN networks.  A new frame format is specified to adapt
>   CCNx and NDN packets to the small MTU size of IEEE 802.15.4.  For
>   that, syntactic and semantic changes to the TLV-based header formats
>   are described.  To support compatibility with other LoWPAN
>   technologies that may coexist on a wireless medium, the dispatching
>   scheme provided by 6LoWPAN is extended to include new dispatch types
>   for CCNx and NDN.  Additionally, the link fragmentation component of
>   the 6LoWPAN dispatching framework is applied to ICN chunks.  In its
>   second part, the document defines stateless and stateful compression
>   schemes to improve efficiency on constrained links.  Stateless
>   compression reduces TLV expressions to static header fields for
>   common use cases.  Stateful compression schemes elide state local to
>   the LoWPAN and replace names in data packets by short local
>   identifiers.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Dirk on behalf of ICNRG chairs
> 
> _______________________________________________
> icnrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg

-- 
Colin Perkins
https://csperkins.org/

---

From: "Dirk Kutscher" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 11:54:06 +0100

Colin,

Thanks for the comments!

> Drafts to be published as RFCs in the IRTF stream need to include 
> various notices, as described in RFC 5743 Section 2.1. Some of those 
> notices look to be missing from this draft and will need to be added 
> before it can be published.

Yes, good point — that should be added.

> It’s also important for a draft to be published as an Experimental 
> RFC to be clear about what experiment being performed. Section 10 of 
> the draft includes a brief implementation report, describing 
> experiments that have been conducted using this protocol, which is 
> good, but the draft says very little about what experiments remain to 
> be done and what can be learnt from further experimental deployment of 
> this protocol. Would it be possible to add some additional context 
> about how this fits with ongoing experiments in this space?

So, that may actually be a good general advice for publishing 
Experimental RFCs in the IRTF. Normally, we would say that a 
specification (like this one) would hopefully lead to additional 
implementations, so that there would be interop tests and potentially 
tests in larger networks (scalability, performance etc.).

In the IRTF, we might be able to do a little better and provide some 
guidance as to what might be interesting experiments to do, what are 
things that we need to understand better etc.

How do the authors feel about adding something in this direction?

Regarding next steps, we (chairs) suggest that the authors produce a 
revision reflecting those comments. Since these are relatively minor, we 
don’t need another last call (unless the authors prefer that), so that 
we would then move to IRSG review.

Thanks,
Dirk

>> This is a last call for comments on draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan (ICN 
>> Adaptation to LowPAN Networks (ICN LoWPAN)).
>>
>> We want to publish this as an Experimental RFC. Please read it and 
>> let us know if you think there are issues. The last call ends on 
>> February 7th, i.e., 2.5 weeks from today.
>>

---

From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:07:35 +0100

Hi,

> How do the authors feel about adding something in this direction?

Authors feel fine: We agree and will add such parts.

> we would then move to IRSG review.

Yup, great: We should be able to provide within this month.

Best,
  Thomas

-- 

Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences                  Berliner Tor 7 °
° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group   20099 Hamburg, Germany °
° http://inet.haw-hamburg.de/members/schmidt      Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 °

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:33:01 +0000

Thanks – this seems like a good approach.
Colin

> On 11 Feb 2020, at 12:07, Thomas C. Schmidt <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 

-- 
Colin Perkins
https://csperkins.org/