RE: Interested in wireless ?

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

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=
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------