This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.


This document looked to be in good shape, but I'm quite unfamiliar with SCHC, so hopefully others who are have also reviewed this.

An overall comment is that this document could use more cross-refs to specific sections of RFC8724

Some nits below:

Section 2

   o  SCHC gateway: It corresponds to the LoRaWAN Application Server.
      It manages translation between IPv6 network and the Network
      Gateway (LoRaWAN Network Server).

  Nit: "It corresponds to" seems unnecessary and isn't parallel with other definitions.  How about:
  "The LoRaWAN Application Server that manages ..."?


Section 4.3

   As SCHC defines its own acknowledgment mechanisms, SCHC does not
   require to use LoRaWAN Confirmed frames.

  This sentence is awkward.  Do you mean ", SCHC does not require the use of LoRaWAN Confirmed Frames".

  Also, it may be worth adding cross-references to the appropriate section of RFC8376 for all of these frame types?


Section 5.1
   A fragmented datagram with application payload transferred from
   device to Network Gateway, is called uplink fragmented datagram.  It

  "Is called an uplink fragmented datagram."?