[ieee-ietf-coord] RFC8691 and 802.11bd

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 15 July 2021 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ieee-ietf-coord@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ieee-ietf-coord@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BB3F3A0659 for <ieee-ietf-coord@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 12:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.672
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.672 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id umiU_IgwyrMn for <ieee-ietf-coord@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 12:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9DF03A0656 for <ieee-ietf-coord@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 12:24:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 16FJOBHr027118; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 21:24:11 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 5AF7C206468; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 21:24:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AE61206405; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 21:24:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.14.0.57] ([10.14.0.57]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 16FJOAsg026421; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 21:24:10 +0200
To: ieee-ietf-coord@ietf.org
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: Thierry Ernst <thierry.ernst@yogoko.fr>
Message-ID: <22460712-eacf-8b13-dd65-4347801fc348@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 21:24:10 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------4561316A8D1F6DAFA34638B9"
Content-Language: fr
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ieee-ietf-coord/F6ITh_8F-Z--YlksavP0HViPb2o>
Subject: [ieee-ietf-coord] RFC8691 and 802.11bd
X-BeenThere: ieee-ietf-coord@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Management-level discussions between IEEE and IETF on topics of interest to both SDOs <ieee-ietf-coord.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ieee-ietf-coord>, <mailto:ieee-ietf-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ieee-ietf-coord/>
List-Post: <mailto:ieee-ietf-coord@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ieee-ietf-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieee-ietf-coord>, <mailto:ieee-ietf-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 19:24:18 -0000

Hi, participants to the IEEE-IETF coordination,

RFC8691 "IPv6 over OCB" is produced by the IPWAVE WG of IETF.  It 
describes the layering of the IPv6 network protocol on top of the 802.11 
MAC in OCB mode.  This mode is the preferred mode of operation for 
automobile networks that involve 802.11.  This OCB mode is also known as 
802.11p, and will be used in the future 802.11bd to be released by IEEE 
in 2022.

I would like to say that it will be a great idea if the 802.11bd 
document cited RFC8691 whenever the former said 'IPv6'.  It would be a 
perfect match.

How to achieve that goal?

I think there might be a few hurdles in achieving it:

- I do not have regular access to the 802.11bd ongoing developments, and 
the latest documents.  I am not a member of the IEEE respective group.

- some IEEE people often think that _if_ there is a network layer in 
automobile networks, then that would first be the IEEE's networking 
layer for it, which is IEEE 1609.3, and 'WSMP', which is a different 
thing than the IP networking layer.  It might be that IEEE gives 
preference to that networking layer instead of IP.

 From an architecture point of view, I think there is no comparison to 
be made between those two networking layers.  The IP networking layer 
clearly has several advantages, scuh as its addressability capacity and 
the forwarding of datagrams for scalability.

 From an implementation point of view, I did see many implementations of 
this IPv6-over-OCB (802.11p) running in many automobile networks. An 
implementation of IPv6-over-OCB of 802.11bd is only around the corner, 
not posing any significant challenge in realization.

Maybe these worries are not really founded, and maybe it is extremely 
easy to cite RFC8691 in 802.11bd.  But how to do it?

Alex