Re: Interested in wireless ?

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 10:17 AM STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > Neat!
> >
> > Many thanks Brian.
> >
> > Pascal
>
> Oh, good. I'd just like to say that Brian very eloquently expressed some
> of the thoughts I had when reading through the draft. This is an important
> topic. I'd like to see it presented in a way that drives deployment, if it
> really will help to solve the problem.
>
> I suspect that to really get high rates of good, interoperable
> implementations in deployed Wi-Fi products, it might need to get picked up
> by Wi-Fi Alliance. An applicability statement that helps them understand
> the use case would be useful. I wonder, though, if that would be more v6ops
> than 6man? That is, it seems more about using (and implementing/deploying)
> existing protocols to improve operation of a network.
>



I think this is a good point. Thanks for pointing it out Barbara.

Regards,
Behcet

> Barbara
>
> > > From: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
> > >
> > > Pascal,
> > >
> > > There is a category of standards track documents foreseen in RFC2026
> > > called "applicability statements", described at
> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_ht
> > > ml_rfc2026-23section-2D3.2&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-
> > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-
> > >
> > 8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=_i8eV1zjwa6e9U_4dG_Ehj8deR5jGNQadCAX4NyOVRg
> > &s=S88z1M
> > > klplQDukKNZjL75ub8LZnYm9ZJBYq_cafJfzY&e=
> > >
> > > I think that is perhaps where your draft could fit. A little bit
> > > stronger than Informational and little bit different than Best
> *Current*
> > Practice.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >    Brian
> > >
> > > On 01-Jun-20 04:40, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> > > > Hello Brian
> > > >
> > > > We may have to split the doc but for the most part I agree it is an
> > > informational.
> > > >
> > > > For now I suggest to just change the intended status accordingly and
> > > > aim at
> > > BCP or something.
> > > >
> > > > Let’s discuss in parallel the coexistence and if there’s a need for
> > > > an std track
> > > somewhere. There’s at least the use of a 6LBR for address looking up
> > > in unicast.
> > > >
> > > > Take care,
> > > > Pascal
> > > >
> > > >> Le 30 mai 2020 à 22:47, Brian E Carpenter
> > > >> <[e-mail]>
> > > a écrit :
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> I believe that this is an important topic that 6MAN should take up.
> > > >> The draft
> > > is a good basis.
> > > >>
> > > >> At the moment I find the draft a bit confusing in one way. It's
> > > >> aimed at
> > > standards track, but it mainly doesn't read like a standard. There's a
> > > lot of discussion but not much specification. If I was a coder, I
> > > wouldn't really know where to start. For example, the end of the
> > Introduction says:
> > > >>
> > > >> "This document discusses the applicability of IPv6 ND over wireless
> > > >> links, as compared with routing-based alternatives such as
> > > >> prefix-per node and multi-link subnets (MLSN), and with Wireless ND
> > > >> (WiND), that is similar to the Wi-Fi association and reduces the
> > > >> need for Network-Layer multicast."
> > > >>
> > > >> If it's a standard, IMHO it shouldn't do that. It should specify
> > > >> what WiND is,
> > > with normative references as needed. Section 5 is the important part.
> > > It's fine to have a descriptive section about why WiND is needed, but
> > > that is almost better as an appendix. The main text should be
> > > essentially the instructions for a kernel programmer.
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards
> > > >>   Brian Carpenter
> > > >>
> > > >>> On 30-May-20 23:46, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> > > >>> Dear all
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Since there’s so much energy on the list these days, could we
> > > >>> consider the adoption of
> > > >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.or
> > > >>> g_html_draft-2Dthubert-2D6man-2Dipv6-2Dover-2Dwireless-
> > 2D05&d=DwIG
> > > >>> aQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-
> > 8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=_i8eV1zjwa6
> > > >>>
> > e9U_4dG_Ehj8deR5jGNQadCAX4NyOVRg&s=zhmY1Y4gPkDO08iqReP1D3y6I
> > UQ2eCR
> > > >>> cItaE6PV0kzU&e=
> > > >>> ?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I got only positive feedback, there’s no politics, there no label,
> > > >>> it’s all about
> > > IPv6 models for wireless. This may appear useful in a world where the
> > > vast majority of devices are connected that way.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Keep safe,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Pascal
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>> -- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [e-mail]
> > > >>> Administrative
> > > >>> Requests:
> > > >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> > 3A__www.ietf.org_
> > > >>> mailman_listinfo_ipv6&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-
> > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-8
> > > >>>
> > sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=_i8eV1zjwa6e9U_4dG_Ehj8deR5jGNQadCAX4NyOVRg&
> > s=d4r
> > > >>> J3C_jWlTRhy2Hr3SeRSeCEeyC8wNfKBtnuG7VCeU&e=
> > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>> --
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > Administrative Requests:
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> > 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ipv6&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-
> > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-
> > 8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=_i8eV1zjwa6e9U_4dG_Ehj8deR5jGNQadCAX4NyOVRg
> > &s=d4rJ3C_jWlTRhy2Hr3SeRSeCEeyC8wNfKBtnuG7VCeU&e=
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>