Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-46.txt> (Basic support for IPv6 over IEEE Std 802.11 Networks operating Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set (IPv6-over-80211-OCB)) to Proposed Standard

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

I fully agree with Jinmei-san's comment.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 14-Jun-19 06:50, 神明達哉 wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:16 PM The IESG <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>> The IESG has received a request from the IP Wireless Access in
>> Vehicular Environments WG (ipwave) to consider the following
>> document: - 'Basic support for IPv6 over IEEE Std 802.11 Networks
>> operating Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set
>> (IPv6-over-80211-OCB)' <draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-46.txt>
>> as Proposed Standard
> 
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
>> solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive
>> comments to the [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> mailing lists by 2019-06-26.
> 
> Version 46 of this draft doesn't seem to specify the exact length
> of the interface identifier..  RFC4862 expects it to be specified in
> this kind of "link-type specific document":
> 
>    interface identifier - [...] The
>       exact length of an interface identifier and the way it is created
>       is defined in a separate link-type specific document that covers
>       issues related to the transmission of IP over a particular link
>       type (e.g., [RFC2464]).  Note that the address architecture
>       [RFC4291] also defines the length of the interface identifiers for
>       some set of addresses, but the two sets of definitions must be
>       consistent.
> 
> Specifying the length is critical since (for example) otherwise an
> implementation can't perform the validation described in Section 5.5.3 of
> RFC4862.
> 
> I suggest Section 4.4 (and probably also 4.3 for link-local) of this
> draft explicitly specifies the length of the interface identifier.
> And then I'd note that the length can (in practice) only be 64 bits
> because of the assumption about the consistency with the address
> architecture (the "Note that..." part of the above citation) and
> because of the fact that the current address architecture states the
> length is 64 bits for link-local and practically all global IPv6
> addresses in use.  I'm aware of the (in)famous tussle on the use of
> the fixed value of 64, but I'm not making this comment for advocating
> for the fixed value; I'm just pointing out a logical consequence of
> the assumption of the current SLAAC standard and the constants used in
> the current standards.
> 
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya
> 
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:16 PM The IESG <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     The IESG has received a request from the IP Wireless Access in Vehicular
>     Environments WG (ipwave) to consider the following document: - 'Basic support
>     for IPv6 over IEEE Std 802.11 Networks operating Outside
>        the Context of a Basic Service Set (IPv6-over-80211-OCB)'
>       <draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-46.txt> as Proposed Standard
> 
>     The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
>     comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> mailing lists by 2019-06-26. Exceptionally, comments may be
>     sent to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
>     the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
>     Abstract
> 
> 
>        This document provides methods and settings, and describes
>        limitations, for using IPv6 to communicate among nodes in range of
>        one another over a single IEEE 802.11-OCB link with minimal change to
>        existing stacks.  Optimizations and usage of IPv6 over more complex
>        scenarios is not covered and is subject of future work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     The file can be obtained via
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb/
> 
>     IESG discussion can be tracked via
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb/ballot/
> 
> 
>     No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> 
> 
>     The document contains these normative downward references.
>     See RFC 3967 for additional information:
>         rfc3753: Mobility Related Terminology (Informational - IETF stream)
>         rfc7721: Security and Privacy Considerations for IPv6 Address Generation Mechanisms (Informational - IETF stream)
>         rfc5889: IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks (Informational - IETF stream)
>         rfc6959: Source Address Validation Improvement (SAVI) Threat Scope (Informational - IETF stream)
> 
> 
> 
>