►
From YouTube: IETF-LPWAN-20230214-1500
Description
LPWAN meeting session at IETF
2023/02/14 1500
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting//proceedings/
B
B
Thank
you
so
hello,
everyone.
This
is
on
the
an
interim
meeting
of
the
lp1
working
group,
so
this
is
an
ITF
meeting
and
a
search,
oh
official
ITF
policies
apply
and
by
participating
you
agree
to
follow
the
ITF
process
and
policies
all
right.
So
if
you
need
to
be
aware
of
all
the
BCPS
that
are
listed
here
and
I
mean
everyone
that
that
that's
that's
right
now
logged
in.
B
So
that's
for
that's
here
for
the
agenda
for
today,
so
we
have,
of
course
the
update
of
the
working
group.
Then
Richard
and
discussion
on
the
rechartering
I
think
that
with
I
mean
a
lot
of
the
things
have
been
said
already,
so
it's
going
to
be
I
think
maybe
the
conclusion
of
these
discussions
we'll
see
and
then
Chic
compound
act
and
next
steps
for
the
architecture
documents
draft.
So
do
you
have
any
additional
items
that
you
would
like
to
discuss.
B
C
C
A
A
C
A
E
C
E
A
Okay,
so
that's
that's
pretty
much
it
for
the
agenda.
Bashing,
I,
guess
and
the
the
status
of
the
working
group
has
not
changed
so
I
move
on
quickly
on
that,
but
we
we
have.
This
is
a
great
days
because
we
always
have
news
on
the
document
advancement,
so
Eric
thanks
so
much
for
your
early
idea
review
for
the
compound
act,
and
we
will
have
a
long
agent
item
to
discuss
that.
Actually,
I
received
one
slide
from
careless
and
and
it's
gonna
be
Sergio's
picking
it.
A
Npiot
is
still
cute
to
the
RFC
editor,
but
it's
in
edit
State,
meaning
that
the
RFC
editor
is
working
on
it.
Chicago
is
complete.
The
only
thing
that
blocks
its
publication
is
the
publication
of
compound
AG.
So
if
you
look
at
the
state
in
details
of
the
sigfox
document,
you
will
find
that
effectively.
There
is
copper
deck
which
is
not
yet
seen
in
DRC
editor
and
for
the
reason
that
we
still
have
to
push
it
to
the
ASG.
A
But
basically,
once
it's
published,
Fox
will
be
published
at
the
same
time,
and
then
we
have
the
young
data
model
which,
as
we
just
discussed,
is
still
in
those
48.
But
from
what
Lauren
was
saying
we
we
are
mostly
done
with
everything
and
we
we
already
know
the
RFC
number.
It's
going
to
be
9
3,
6
3..
A
A
F
Well,
hi
everyone
thank
you
here.
Well,
we
received
the
the
ad
review
on
version
10.
thanks
a
lot
to
Eric
for
the
for
the
review.
We
have
already
applied
almost
all
changes
and
we
have
a
copy.
Well,
we
have
a
copy
on
on
our
genome,
discussing
with
the
with
the
authors,
and
we
have
already
all
the
point
by
Point
answers
to
the
well.
We
are
missing
one
or
two,
but
we
have
almost
all
the
all
the
answers
to
the
Eric
email.
F
F
E
E
E
E
F
E
E
D
F
E
A
A
Okay
and
actually
I
guess.
The
next
item
was
to
go
a
little
bit
through
the
rechar
train
text,
so
that
was
a
very
limited,
limited
discussion
and
and
change
last
time.
I
will
show
it,
but
basically
the
text
has
been
stable,
as
we
promised.
Last
time,
we
have
published
the
text
to
the
mailing
list.
That
was
basically
only
one
reaction
that
was
Anna.
Thank
you
so
much
Anna,
but
it
seems
that
the
the
the
no
one
was
unhappy
with
with
the
text.
A
A
And
the
new
work
items
which
are
proposed
for
this
re-chartering
I've
been
stable,
I
mean
they
are
the
same
as
as
before
so
discussion.
Last
time
was
about
you
know:
do
we
need
to
be
explicit
on
which
foods
there
are
for
Chicago
and
which
bar
foreign,
but
we
we
decided
to
give
a
certain
list
because
we
could
not
leave
it
completely
open
I
mean
we
thought
the
ASG
would
react
to
that.
So
we
gave
a
list
of
what
we
could
support,
but
we
don't
commit
to
to
support
all
of
them.
A
D
A
E
A
A
A
E
E
E
And
honestly
I
think
we
need
to
stop
Bank
shedding,
as
we
say
at
the
iitf,
the
charter,
it
will
be
reviewed
by
the
AG
and
you
will
get
more
change
to
it
and
then
by
data
Community
with
more
change,
so
Pascal
try
to
send
me
or
Alexa
try
to
send
me.
The
charter
and
I
will
start
the
process
this
week,
right
or
even
later.
Today,.
E
A
But
so
so
it's
not
like.
We
expect
you
to
process
that
today,
but
I
will
I
will
I'm
doing
this
edit
because,
anyway,
we
are
ahead
of
our
time.
So
I
can
I
will
just
read
it
to
you
the
text
as
it's,
because
full
appears
number
of
times.
That's
what
that's
why
you
see
me
gasping
a
little
bit
underlying.
A
But
at
least
you
have
you
have
the
list
of
of
the
work
items
that
we
would
like
to
cover
there.
We
go
it's
flying
to
you,
Eric,
and
so
for
this
we
are
good
and
let's
move
on
okay,
the
architecture.
So
last
time
we
discussed
whether
there
should
be
two
steps
or
stages
in
the
architecture
document,
one
describing
more.
You
know
the
art
of
LP
ones
where
you
have
this
single
hub
and
then
one
where
we
would
extend
that
to
multi-harvest
expose
the
changes
that
this
implies
to
the
architecture.
A
I've
been
having
possibly
peer-to-peer
communication
as
opposed
to
device
to
app
communication
and
also
I,
think
the
the
need
to
Signal
the
session,
because
now
we
are
going
over
multiple
hubs
between
possibly
peer
nodes,
and
so
we
discussed
that
and
looking
at
the
minutes,
remembering
what
was
said
it,
it
seems
that
we
converged
into
saying
that
having
those
two
steps
is
a
bit
of
Overkill
with
it,
because
that's
real
history,
that's
how
we
got
there,
but
it's
not
really
what
we
are
building.
What
we
are
building
is
we
have
this
session.
A
It
simply
said
it's
it's
explicit,
but
we
have.
We
have
this
session,
so
let's
have
the
architecture,
show
something
which
works
in
any
case
and
then
say
Oh
by
the
way
in
the
signaling.
You
may
not
need
to
Signal
the
session,
but
it's
there.
It's
always
there
and
since
we
converge
I'm
saying
that
that's
what
I
said
last
time
but
I've
been
reviewing,
it
I
was
still
the
same
I'm,
not
convinced
that
we
need
to
change
the
the
structure
of
the
architecture
document.
It
seems
to
convey
what
was
asked
last
time.
A
A
B
Yeah
yeah
I
agree.
That's
kind
of
work
with
this
one
and
and
of
course,
I
think
once
we
get
the
new
Charter
finalized,
we'll
we'll
reread
the
architecture
document
and
just
make
sure
that
everything
that's
in
the
charter
is
covered,
which
I
think
it
is
right.
Let's
just
like
reread
it
once
one
once
more
and
then
I
think
we
have
everything
there
and
if
we
see
something
missing,
we'll
contribute
right,
but
yeah.
A
That's
a
great
point,
because
all
this
discussion
we
had
about
the
foo
and
the
bars
Etc.
We
probably
need
to
write
something
in
the
architecture
to
explain
that
chick
can
really
act
as
a
player
in
various
places,
and
sometimes
you
you
have
it
several
times
on
your
stack
and
so
the
other
things
which
it
compresses
and
the
thing
that
transported
and
these
are
the
foods
and
the
bars
and-
and
so
we.
Yes,
we
probably
need
to
to
provide
more
details
on
that.
B
B
B
No,
no
it's
often
it
was
all
I
wanted
to
say,
but
I
agree
with
what
you
said
here,
that
the
structure
is
is
okay,
as
it
is
to
the
end.
You
know,
after
rereading
after
that,
maybe
we'll
consider
something
else,
but
for
the
moment
you
know
it
doesn't
make
Maybe,
it's
not
the
right
time
to
rearrange
stuff
before
you
know,
seeing
how
things
will
evolve
with
the
with
the
rich
artery.
A
Okay
and
and
the
discussion
that
Laura
started
an
access,
control,
Etc
and
this
this
it
and
which
is
listed
here.
Yes,
we
will
need
to
have
some
text.
The
thing
is
we,
we
kind
of
write
something
in
the
architecture
once
the
group
has
kind
of
converged
on
something.
So
access
control
is
just
an
early
draft.
C
Yes,
Access
Control
can
be
just
a
draft
and
then
can
can
merge
to
to
architecture
or
if
we
don't
have,
if
we
don't
add
a
lot
of
things
around
another
point,
it's
but
I
think
the
architecture
has
to
be
very
generic.
It
means
that
we
don't
have
to
say
it
works
for
lp1
it.
It
works
for
mesh,
it's
just
an
article
architecture
that
can
be
applied
to
all
these
Technologies.
So.
C
For
example,
what
we
need
to
to
know
is
how
we
identify
the
the
chicken
stances
and
all
that
stuff
so
to
to
be
sure
that
we
we
have
something
that
is
universal
and
then
on
security.
For
example.
We
can
state
that,
for
example,
a
device
can
only
modify
its
representation
on
on
the
core
or
a
thing
like
this
so
to
to
restricts
what
can
be
changed.
But
in.
A
The
world,
so
that's!
Yes,
if
this
is
very
touchy
wording.
So
it
would
be
great
that
if
you
don't
mind
you
post
an
email
where
you
craft
the
words
that
you
would
like
to
see
in
the
security
section
to
cover
the
access
control.
So
if
you're
already
very
clear
based
on
your
document
Etc
in
the
description
last
time
of
what
kind
of
wording
exactly
you
would
like
to
see
in
the
architecture
and
then
we
can,
we
can
expose
it
to
the
mailing
list
and
and
get
feedback
and
discuss
it.
C
But
yeah,
but
it's
not
clear
to
me
too.
So
that's
why
I
I
put
Access
Control
in
fact,
is
to
to
have
a
discussion
on
on
that
and
see
what
part
of
the
this
discussion
can
go
to
the
architecture
and
if
it
remains
something
that
is
not
in
the
architecture,
because,
for
example,
we
we
have
to
Define
and
we
will
have
to
define
the
young
data
model,
then
we
need.
Maybe
it
can
be
a
very
in
the
architecture
if
but
no.
A
And
it
will
remain
informational,
so
anything
standard
track
will
be
in
its
own
standard,
so
the
architecture
will
be
the
like.
The
the
underlying
structure,
which,
which
explains
how
things
fit
together,
but
how
they
are
done
will
be
in
the
specification
documents
which
will
be
starter
track,
not
just
informational.
C
D
B
Yeah
so
I
mean
I,
I,
I
I
think
it's
really
precious.
The
document
that
you
are
writing
about
the
the
ACL
at
the
access
control
and
we
we
discussed
that
you
know
we
need
to
define
a
couple
of
of
use
cases
I.
Think
like
the
cases
where
we
want
to
to
Define
that
acl4.
So
that's
that
I
think
that's
super
useful,
but
I
mean
I
I.
B
Maybe
it's
really
good
if
we
have
like
to
prepare
for
that
discussion,
because
it's
a
very
deep
topic
and
I
know
that
we
can
take
up
all
the
time-
and
you
know
maybe
not
to
arrive
at
at
the
conclusive
step.
But
there
is
something
like
the
owner
on
the
ACL.
There
is
something
about
that:
we'll
see
how
it
translates
to
the
architecture
and
that's
something
I'm
really
looking
forward
to.