RE: Interested in wireless ?

"STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com> Mon, 01 June 2020 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <bs7652@att.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1235D3A12E3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 10:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qxcP0KvWXuG3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 10:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A46623A12B1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 10:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049462.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049462.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 051HC6aT009116; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 13:12:16 -0400
Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0049462.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 31d4n8hskx-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 01 Jun 2020 13:12:16 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 051H7EYf001029; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 13:07:15 -0400
Received: from zlp30487.vci.att.com (zlp30487.vci.att.com [135.47.91.176]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 051H7BFT000898 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 1 Jun 2020 13:07:11 -0400
Received: from zlp30487.vci.att.com (zlp30487.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30487.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 07D114016BBC; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 17:07:11 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAC.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.8.218.152]) by zlp30487.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id DD6184016BBB; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 17:07:10 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1CC.ITServices.sbc.com (135.50.89.110) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAC.ITServices.sbc.com (130.8.218.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.487.0; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 13:07:09 -0400
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1CB.ITServices.sbc.com (135.50.89.109) by GAALPA1MSGEX1CC.ITServices.sbc.com (135.50.89.110) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1979.3; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 13:07:09 -0400
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1CB.ITServices.sbc.com ([135.50.89.109]) by GAALPA1MSGEX1CB.ITServices.sbc.com ([135.50.89.109]) with mapi id 15.01.1979.003; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 13:07:09 -0400
From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
To: "'Pascal Thubert (pthubert)'" <pthubert@cisco.com>, "'Brian E Carpenter'" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
CC: "'6man WG'" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Interested in wireless ?
Thread-Topic: Interested in wireless ?
Thread-Index: AQHWNnfqX/nhVMuy1Ea+e7RI89I6LqjBXTiAgAFNXICAAG+3AIAAmYgAgAArLHCAAE4BgP//w3FggABKQQD//8YDwA==
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 17:07:09 +0000
Message-ID: <da123cd49e574eaab979d64168a67022@att.com>
References: <A26FA9F8-72B8-4728-B978-6DDD271EC64D@cisco.com> <d157e481-f5d0-7f54-2f62-7400e0394688@gmail.com> <49E329AB-5060-46A3-BEC9-66EC80056565@cisco.com> <2c94c310-28ba-01e5-a874-029509e9b653@gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB3565BC3BF415667EB2D75870D88A0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <4594894861b54c3ab6a3644829440a5f@att.com> <MN2PR11MB35657D5A64F886C0AC206600D88A0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <8081e6852e5442f0913bef9d6db6a928@att.com> <MN2PR11MB3565CF245F6D06087D319636D88A0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB3565CF245F6D06087D319636D88A0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.70.230.242]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-06-01_12:2020-06-01, 2020-06-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 cotscore=-2147483648 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2006010128
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/u6DJ_oSeUVUW3wXq0JNjucZF_v8>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 17:12:26 -0000

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

I don't see WFA listed on https://www.ietf.org/about/liaisons/. I would have been surprised to see it there. 
So, I'd say, cross membership it is.
Barbara

> Keep safe,
> 
> Pascal
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com>
> > Sent: lundi 1 juin 2020 18:13
> > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>om>; 'Brian E Carpenter'
> > <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> > Cc: '6man WG' <ipv6@ietf.org>
> > 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 <bs7652@att.com>
> > > > Sent: lundi 1 juin 2020 17:17
> > > > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>om>; 'Brian E
> Carpenter'
> > > > <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> > > > Cc: '6man WG' <ipv6@ietf.org>
> > > > 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 <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > > >> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> > > > > > 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 ipv6@ietf.org
> > > > > > >>> 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 ipv6@ietf.org
> > > > > 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=
> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > --
> > > > > --