Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 no IPv6 prohibition on the control channel

MAY NOT is also bad standards language -- it's not clear whether it
means MIGHT NOT, which is the same as MAY, or SHALL NOT. I prefer MAY
in this case.

William

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Jérôme Härri <jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr> wrote:
> Hello Alex,
>
> I do not fully understand your argument about your country not imposing
> restriction and why you prefer MAY NOT. Your proposed new formulation gives
> the impression that in most countries, IPv6 is restricted...which is not the
> case actually. My formulation was the opposite, claiming that in general
> there is no restriction, but in some cases, maybe. I still think 'MAY'
> should remain, as it would not pose any problem in the country where you
> leave.
>
>
> BR,
>
> Jérôme
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexandre Petrescu [mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday 10 February 2017 13:39
> To: Jérôme Härri; its@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 no IPv6
> prohibition on the control channel
>
>
>
> Le 10/02/2017 à 13:00, Jérôme Härri a écrit :
>> Hello Alex,
>>
>> As discussed, there is a strick prohibition from ETSI and IEEE WAVE.
>> But, as this work will not use it, we do not need to comply with it.
>> We only need to comply with national spectrum regulations...whatever
>> is in there...
>>
>> I would however suggest to add the following statement:
>> "Transmissions of IPv6 packets on ITS spectrum SHALL comply with the
>> national spectrum regulations, which MAY lead to restrictions on IP
>> operations using IEEE 802.11-2016 in OCB mode."
>
> Jérôme,
>
> I agree with the first part, that I can add.
>
> The national spectrum regulation in the country where I live does not lead
> to restrictions on IP operations using 802.11 in OCB mode.
>
> So I could say:
>> "Transmissions of IPv6 packets on ITS spectrum SHALL comply with the
>> national spectrum regulations, which MAY NOT lead to restrictions on
>> IP operations using IEEE 802.11-2016 in OCB mode."
>
> Alex
>
>>
>> I think this leaves flexibility for this WG to propose solutions..
>>
>> BR,
>>
>> Jérôme
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: its [mailto:its-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu Sent: Friday 10 February 2017 12:05 To:
>> its@ietf.org Subject: [ipwave]
>> draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 no IPv6 prohibition on the
>> control channel
>>
>> draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 no IPv6 prohibition on the
>> control channel
>>
>> Hello IPWAVErs,
>>
>> We received a comment stating that LCC/OBE does not prohibit the use
>> of IPv6 on the control channel.  (I do not understand what the
>> commenter meant meant by "LCC" - typo for FCC, LLC? or Lower Control
>> Channel? but that's another issue).
>>
>> As such I will remove the following text:
>>> On another hand, at IEEE, IPv6 is explicitely prohibited on channel
>>> number 178 decimal - the FCC's 'Control Channel'.  The document
>>> [ieeep1609.4-D9-2010] prohibits upfront the use of IPv6 traffic on
>>> the Control Channel: 'data frames containing IP datagrams are only
>>> allowed on service channels'.  Other 'Service Channels' are allowed
>>> to use IP, but the Control Channel is not.
>>
>> There are many other reasons for removing that text that we discussed
>> here extensively.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> its@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its