Re: [IPv6] WG adoption for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless/ ?

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lorenzo,

On 11-Jan-23 22:33, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> While this document makes for interesting reading, it does not seem to be appropriate for 6man. If you look at the 6man charter <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-6man/>, the group is responsible for maintaining and advancing the IPv6 specifications. This document doesn't seem to be doing that - it's describing how things can be deployed.

I view it more as an architectural overview of a situation that is far from satisfactory and that needs further work, either in 6MAN or elsewhere in the Internet Area. If that isn't in the 6MAN charter, I'd see that as a bug in the charter. But I think it should be in scope, under this part of the charter:

"The working group will address protocol
limitations/issues discovered during deployment and operation. It will
also serve as a venue for discussing the proper location for working on
IPv6-related issues within the IETF."

> 
> But more than that - after reading the document it's not clear to me what the purpose of the document is, 

I think the draft is a bit too polite and should perhaps be repositioned as "Issues in IPv6 Neighbor Discovery on Wireless Networks" with a summary at the end of what needs to be done. To over-simplify, we are now beyond the point where pretending that all local networks behave like small Ethernets is a reasonable position.

So, its purpose should be to ring an alarm bell and suggest work to be done.

> and whether it should end up being published by IETF consensus at all.

Too soon to say.

> Is the goal of the document to advocate changes in the specs? But if so, it should contain a clear statement of a problem to be solved 

Yes, I agree.

> (and should probably be in v6ops). 

Maybe some of it is about current practice, but I don't think that's the main point, which is architectural.

I agree with your comments below about some confusion in goals. That's why I'd advocate positioning this more as a pointer to problems and issues that the IntArea should work on.

Regards
      Brian

> Is it to describe how things can be deployed? But if so, it should probably focus on a narrower set of scenarios, and go into more detail on each of them, with the goal of making some recommendations of what to use where (which again would be appropriate in v6ops). But that doesn't seem to be the case either. After reading through the document it feels that what it comes closest to is a tutorial for how some types of ND can be used. But these are probably not the only way these can be used; the document tries to cover so much ground that it does not seem to be possible for it to be comprehensive.
> 
> Your email states that the goal of the document is to explain why certain choices were made. That's definitely interesting reading, though I'd guess it will inevitably end up being a matter of opinion; WGs make choices for lots of reasons, many of them not directly technically motivated (e.g., compromise between proponents of different technologies, compromise between implementations, etc.) and it seems difficult of impossible to authoritatively describe those reasons after the fact.
> 
> It definitely seems interesting as an individual submission - you were there when all these RFCs were written, and your perspective on them is certainly interesting - but perhaps not as a WG doc?
> 
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 5:54 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Gentle reminder:
> 
>     Please let us know if the addition of the new bit in the RPL option causes any issue on the 6MAN side (we expect not).
> 
>     All the best to you all;
> 
>     Pascal
> 
>      > -----Original Message-----
>      > From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>      > Sent: jeudi 5 janvier 2023 14:39
>      > To: IPv6 WG ([e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>      > Subject: WG adoption for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-6man- <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-6man->
>      > ipv6-over-wireless/ ?
>      >
>      > Dear chairs and all:
>      >
>      > At the last IETF meeting in London I presented draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-
>      > wireless which describes how IPv6 can be deployed over wireless networks, and
>      > suggests that the L3 models of Links and Subnets can be decoupled from L2
>      > connectivity, e.g., when the lower layer does not provide transitive
>      > connectivity, which is the case of most wireless networks.
>      >
>      > In MANET and 6lo networks, it is usual that the L3 link abstraction is based
>      > on P2P even when L2 may reach more than one node. The subnet can still be a
>      > /64, though the membership becomes an administrative decision as opposed to
>      > mapping a broadcast domain as is typically done with wires. And routing
>      > inside the subnet replaces the need for traditional IPv6 ND which 1) is not
>      > designed for NBMA and 2) is inefficient in terms of power, spectrum, and
>      > reliability (e.g., for DAD).
>      >
>      > The doc was written to explain to a larger audience why those choices were
>      > made; it is now complete and I got positive feedback, including from Brian at
>      > v6ops before the break, that it should be published; would the chairs now
>      > consider calling for adoption now - or else why not ?
>      >
>      > All the best;
>      >
>      > Pascal
>      >
> 
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------