RE: Interested in wireless ?

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello again Barbara:

Does that mean that our influence is thorugh cross membership, or do we have a more direct channel from the IETF?

Keep safe,

Pascal


> -----Original Message-----
> From: STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]>
> Sent: lundi 1 juin 2020 18:13
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>; 'Brian E Carpenter'
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc: '6man WG' <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: Interested in wireless ?
> 
> Hi Pascal,
> 
> > Hello Barbara:
> >
> > RFC 8505 and the 2 following drafts (Backbone Router and Address
> > Protection) are already referenced by the upcoming IEEE Std. 802.11
> > revision, the last 2 as draft-ietf-* for now. This is why we care to
> > get the other RFC numbers soon (the 2 drafts are in RFCed queue). I
> > expect that this means an automatic pick by WFA?
> 
> No, it wouldn't mean that at all. WFA only creates certification and does
> plugfests on subsets of IEEE 802.11 standards that their members are actively
> pushing for and wanting to implement. There is lots of stuff in IEEE that WFA
> completely ignores. And sometimes, if IEEE is dithering and indecisive (i.e.,
> experiencing politics, like during the 802.11n wars) WFA just goes ahead and
> creates a certification spec without waiting for IEEE to get its act together.
> Barbara
> 
> > We'll note that the IEEE references are informational, like, it is
> > recommended to do ND proxy and informationally, here's how you can do it.
> > But still it's a step. We need to convince the stacks. For all I know
> > some routers are ready to engage.
> >
> > Take care,
> >
> > Pascal
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]>
> > > Sent: lundi 1 juin 2020 17:17
> > > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>; 'Brian E Carpenter'
> > > <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: '6man WG' <[e-mail]>
> > > Subject: RE: Interested in wireless ?
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > > > > or
> > > > > g_
> > > > > 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=
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --