Re: [ipwave] Title of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-45
Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 29 May 2019 20:51 UTC
Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA1DD1201E2 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2019 13:51:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.887
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] 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 D4vipJZz04V4 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2019 13:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3444612001B for <its@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 May 2019 13:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 166DF3009FF for <its@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 May 2019 16:32:25 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id S9Mbv98GoPoD for <its@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 May 2019 16:32:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (unknown [138.88.156.37]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 98869300470; Wed, 29 May 2019 16:32:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Message-Id: <FA0E8622-BA32-4462-A93C-3C8F4990525D@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_21314877-0E99-43B9-B605-5A59CD40531D"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 16:51:38 -0400
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB35654179C2A7114D18F9C1C7D81E0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: "its@ietf.org" <its@ietf.org>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
References: <MN2PR11MB35654179C2A7114D18F9C1C7D81E0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/105drunrplcmKMHNMjOeuh8YBzU>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Title of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-45
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPWAVE - IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG at IETF <its.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/its/>
List-Post: <mailto:its@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 20:51:47 -0000
Pascal, I think that Basic support ..." would be a better title. Rus > On May 28, 2019, at 9:52 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote: > > Dear all: > > Nabil and I are converging on the draft. One open item that deserves the group’s attention is the title. > > The current title seems to indicate that the draft is *the* way of doing IPv6 over OCB when in fact it is the way to do that with minimal change to existing stacks. > As written, it indicates that IPWAVE is done and can close when in fact the work is just starting with 8 other drafts in progress. My suggestion is to change the title to add Minimal in it like we did multiple times at 6TiSCH. > > Suggestion: change the title to: > > Minimal support for IPv6 over IEEE Std 802.11 Networks operating Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set > > This leaves opening for draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-mobility-management, draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-neighbor-discovery, and so on. > > Does that make sense? > > Pascal > > From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > Sent: mardi 28 mai 2019 10:49 > To: Nabil Benamar <benamar73@gmail.com <mailto:benamar73@gmail.com>> > Cc: its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org> > Subject: RE: [ipwave] rereview of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-45 > > Hello Nabil: > > In the next rev I expect to see text in the intro that states the scope of reusing legacy stacks with minimal changes. > > Expressed that way, the discussion on legacy ND only and using the Ethernet distribution system and then a frame translation to 802.11, all makes full sense. > Also, this prepares for the work that the group has already started, which involves new stack elements better suited for OCB. > > This should also be in the title. Suggestion for the new title: > > > Minimal support for IPv6 over IEEE Std 802.11 Networks operating Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set > > > The ‘minimal’ avoids the risk that the reader thinks that this draft has it all and that IPWAVE can close after that. > > All the best, > > Pascal > > From: Nabil Benamar <benamar73@gmail.com <mailto:benamar73@gmail.com>> > Sent: lundi 27 mai 2019 17:12 > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com <mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>> > Cc: its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [ipwave] rereview of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-45 > > Hi Pascal, > > We are converging :) > > See below > > > Best regards > Nabil Benamar > ------------------- > نبيل بنعمرو > > > > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:47 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com <mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>> wrote: > Hello Nabil: > > I removed the places where we already agree. Please see below for the remaining details > > > Ø This should be out of scope and inherited from IPv6 over WiFi. If the draft does not exist then let us do one, at 6MAN. > > Yes, I support this idea to initiate a new draft in 6MAN. I'm in! > Ø The introduction should clatify the scope, which appears to be do with what existing stacks can do and (sometimes) see what’s missing. > > Here is the new introduction (first paragraph), are we missing something else? > > "This document describes the transmission of IPv6 packets on IEEE Std > 802.11-OCB networks [IEEE-802.11-2016] (a.k.a "802.11p" see > Appendix B, Appendix C and Appendix D). This involves the layering > of IPv6 networking on top of the IEEE 802.11 MAC layer, with an LLC > layer. Compared to running IPv6 over the Ethernet MAC layer, there > is no modification expected to IEEE Std 802.11 MAC and Logical Link > sublayers: IPv6 works normally over a single IEEE 802.11-OCB link, > with an LLC layer. Multi-link scenarios are out of scope for the > present document." > > > Pascal, I have just received a detailed review from some IEEE-802.11 members, thanks to Dorothy! One of the recommendation is to remove section 4.2.1 completely. > > Ø Good, we are converging. > > > > > I agree. It seems that by describing specific values, the text is redundant with what’s already in IEEE Std 802.11-2016 > In the <reference> tag to the IEEE spec just use <date/> . This actually removes the date. Also please remove -2016 from the spec name, just leave generic 802.11 dateless. > Ok. > > Placing a date is misguided since we do not have a dependency on one particular version of 802.11. Indeed we want your spec to apply to all versions starting current, which is what is implied by dateless. > That's perfect. > > > > > Ø Are we sure of that, don’t we map QoS from ToS bits as usual with 11e? > > > Here is the new text to replace that paragraph: > > " “The IPv6 packet transmitted on 802.11-OCB MUST be immediately preceded by a Logical Link Control (LLC) header and an 802.11 header. In the LLC header, and in accordance with the EtherType Protocol Discrimination (EPD, see Appendix E <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-45#appendix-E>), the value of the Type field MUST be set to 0x86DD (IPv6). The mapping to the 802.11 data service MUST use a ‘priority’ value of 1, which specifies the use of QoS with a “Background” user priority." > > Ø Can’t we use different QoS values like we can on WiFi? > > That was the recommendation of IEEE 802.11 members, and I updated the draft based on your review and their recommendations. Please feel free to suggest other text here. > > > > To simplify the Application Programming Interface (API) between the > operating system and the 802.11-OCB media, device drivers MAY > implement an Ethernet Adaptation Layer that translates Ethernet II > frames to the 802.11 format and vice versa. An Ethernet Adaptation > Layer is described in Section 4.2.1. > > Ø Do not call that an adaptation layer. The may refers to using an Ethernet stack and then a translation from Ethernet Frames to 802.11 frames as specified by IEEE. > > What do you suggest instead? > > > Ø Maybe that “an implementation may IPv6 over Ethernet per RFC 2464 and then a frame translation from 802.3 to 802.11 in order to minimize the code changes”. > > Ø If minimal impact on the stack is the actual goal of this draft, which I think it is. This is what justifies publish this hastily and then do the real work that implies larger changes. > > Ø > > Sounds good for me! > > > > > 4.4. Stateless Autoconfiguration > > There are several types of IPv6 addresses [RFC4291], [RFC4193], that > MAY be assigned to an 802.11-OCB interface. This section describes > the formation of Interface Identifiers for IPv6 addresses of type > 'Global' or 'Unique Local'. For Interface Identifiers for IPv6 > address of type 'Link-Local' see Section 4.3. > > Ø Not really interesting. More important is to say that autoconf is defined in RFC 4862 and that is missing. > > Didn't get your point! What is missing? > > > > Ø IPv6 autoconf is described in RFC 4862. This section does not refer to it, but rather duplicates the previous about address types, which is far from interesting. > > Ø I suggest you remove the text above and add a sentence that roughly introduce RFC 4862. Note that RFC 8505 does not change the autoconfiguration though it changes the way DAD is achieved. > > > > Ok. I will include it in -46 > > > Ø MUST +> MAY. Say the scope of this doc only considers ND but neither RFC 8505 nor IPWAVE drafts. > > > Here is the new text as agreed last time with Brian: > > "The baseline Neighbor Discovery protocol (ND) [RFC4861] MUST be > supported over 802.11-OCB links." > > > > Ø Yes, that works. > > > > Ø Remove or turn it the other way around like future solutions to OCB should consider solutions for avoiding broadcast. > > I will reformulate in the following manner: > > Transmitting ND packets may prove to have some performance issues. These issues may be exacerbated in OCB > mode. Future solutions to OCB should consider solutions for avoiding broadcast. The best of current knowledge indicates the kinds of issues that may arise with ND in OCB mode; they are described in Appendix J. > > > Ø Good > > > > > > All the best, > > Pascal > > > Thank you once again. > > I will publish version 46 soon. > > > > Ø Please ping me when done; do not forget to scope the document so that it is minimizing changes to existing stack and leveraging Ethernet implementation, with IPv6 ND and so on, and a focus on P2P over link local. > > > All the best, > > Pascal > > Thank you, Pascal for your time.
- [ipwave] Title of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-802… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [ipwave] Title of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] Title of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over… Russ Housley
- Re: [ipwave] Title of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [ipwave] Title of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [ipwave] Title of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over… Russ Housley
- Re: [ipwave] Title of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over… Nabil Benamar
- Re: [ipwave] Title of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [ipwave] Title of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [ipwave] Title of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over… Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [ipwave] Title of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)