RE: Interested in wireless ?

["STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail]>]

> 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.
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=
> --------------------------------------------------------------------