Internet-Draft SCHC commands March 2020
Thubert Expires 26 September 2020 [Page]
Intended Status:
Standards Track
P. Thubert, Ed.
Cisco Systems

Command and Control Registry for SCHC


This document creates a registry for command and control rule values across 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

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 26 September 2020.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

"Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) and fragmentation for LPWAN, application to UDP/IPv6" [SCHC] defines a generic compression and fragmentation protocol that is optimized for LPWAN networks.

SCHC needs to be instanciated to be applied to a particular networking technology. This is being done at the LPWAN WG for [LoRaWAN], [Sigfox], and [NB-IOT].

SCHC does not have to be limited to compression and fragmentation; it can be extended for other purposes, e.g., to transport commands and responses. The necessary commands appear to be very similar across technologies and it makes sense to create a shared IANA registry that is valid across technologies.

2. Terminology

2.1. References

2.2. BCP 14

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. Purpose of this document

This document creates a registry for command and control rule values across technologies. This does not mean that all technologies need to implement all the command and controls defined in the IANA registry that this document creates, either.

4. Security Considerations

This specification only creates a registry. There is no security consideration about the registry itself.

5. IANA Considerations

This specification creates a new Subregistry for the LPWAN command and control values for use within the [SCHC] protocol.

Table 1: Acceptance values of the RPL Status
Value Meaning Reference
0 Reset RFC THIS
2 Rekey RFC THIS

6. Acknowledgments


7. Normative References

Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <>.
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <>.
Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, , <>.
Minaburo, A., Toutain, L., Gomez, C., Barthel, D., and J. Zuniga, "Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) and fragmentation for LPWAN, application to UDP/IPv6", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc-24, , <>.

8. Informative References

Zuniga, J., Gomez, C., and L. Toutain, "SCHC over Sigfox LPWAN", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-sigfox-01, , <>.
Ramos, E. and A. Minaburo, "SCHC over NB-IoT", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-nbiot-01, , <>.
Gimenez, O. and I. Petrov, "Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) over LoRaWAN", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan-05, , <>.

Author's Address

Pascal Thubert (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc
Building D
45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
06254 MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis