@bartmoons pretty substantial first contribution, congrats!

I'm eager to try this!

@bartmoons great! I'll also have a look at this. At first glance, it seems you are copying some of the applications in examples? We could probably deduplicate a lot of the code (e.g., extend the Makefiles of the existing examples to use gnrc_schc, instead of creating new apps). But I need to take a closer look at this first.

We could probably deduplicate a lot of the code (e.g., extend the Makefiles of the existing examples to use gnrc_schc, instead of creating new apps).

But then CI would not be able to build this.

But then CI would not be able to build this.

maybe a good candidate for iterating Kconfig configurations with incremental builds in the CI, @leandrolanzieri ? (:

In any way, we can also have a small compile-test application (or a more sophisticated one) in tests/. The example could stay minimal.

@bartmoons great! I'll also have a look at this. At first glance, it seems you are copying some of the applications in examples? We could probably deduplicate a lot of the code (e.g., extend the Makefiles of the existing examples to use gnrc_schc, instead of creating new apps). But I need to take a closer look at this first.

Yes, indeed. Probably running the gnrc_networking example with the gnrc_schc module is a better approach. IDK about the LoRaWAN example; was more to see if it would work with a different netif.

@bartmoons do you have by chance any recommendations on what to run close the the Application Server in LoRaWAN in order to send/receive IPv6 data over LoRaWAN?

@jia200x I'm currently using click for this. However, should be fairly easy to transform the gnrc_border_router to route the decompressed packets. But that doesn't implement an MQTT client ofc..

I will give it a try, thanks!

@bartmoons any news on this? In particular is libSCHC on compliant with https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc9011 ? Or is the plan that it will be?

We plan to provide full support for both RFC 8724 and RFC 9011, if time permits at least. This could be ready by this summer.

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. If you want me to ignore this issue, please mark it with the "State: don't stale" label. Thank you for your contributions.

If nobody else is already working on this, I'd like to pick this up in the next few weeks, as it seem to have become stale. Anyone against that?

I started my picking up in #18515. I decided to split this up into two PRs: first the package import, then the integration into GNRC.

With #18515 and #18700 the contents of this PR are now adopted in new PRs.