Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-11
"Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> Sat, 16 November 2019 05:24 UTC
Return-Path: <jaehoon.paul@gmail.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 5648E1200C1 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 21:24:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HK_NAME_FM_MR_MRS=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 mzjbB4dapL0P for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 21:24:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42a.google.com (mail-wr1-x42a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 936A11200B8 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 21:24:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42a.google.com with SMTP id r10so13160422wrx.3 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 21:24:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oJuQk4kNK0A3YaqXg+CSuj/4LM3uekvDc6E5JBeGecY=; b=Fdivjv7pbUBdkb58xjp/VAQN+DIuNPCuqu2SylEz+NwFAn3BFWELxVBNh6YWq9/77h LgJbz6+hfOA0Vj1TZOPMlOWYp1q48j/jWE2zloMITnoe5DvgRE1BPAf2ZPyoc+6htheJ /vIzT2uHFUJjP6di+w37EfY7GLA9/zMtUoDFTk5l7oSjkVC4QQzJ3zMTzqcWPLnc1GbP wVDdAjneqni8ALn/w9whAy1W6B2QvG/scKa+BqhhG+VFlTAQvRiJSEOZQgADOBXkY6mf CNPA0KpMKdwxukVsOVjK+I3P+KYYm3OKFvgMenOT4aR/Tq4IY2Vgoqy3XU2XlsrSgbUy kFxg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oJuQk4kNK0A3YaqXg+CSuj/4LM3uekvDc6E5JBeGecY=; b=A8cr6VeTg8NWXRd4vkDMO0ISqs2vqqPFiKiXVTM7hMzPFB1zEPNFJizBPcjurubzQP E8QyCk4NnnY4NEUf3CEZWYIbeOduycG5Hs/fVQowsVJIN0w5ElXAxu36b/FjI+hflHgk gkzpW1HftQR0jkbk/FtzEHJzAzCN1xZ17Jf+nbYuv2swHmeTXoqVCiKVcwhBLDckQYiL PJ8OY8OjH00ThDMFTQXKZJiM0EtdIm3SVXH2PMSbyJsiHnVsH6NQiKVecHRIEDrb2U18 fgoJgY1SP8fTxrAVRVt4YHB4KT+r4ZH+R8PyO1EaOyS3YljO3vn+CWjoKCEgZ3S7DbSb mEcw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVLgoFPChRO0gKF6hgQ4Mov+WVWTN03q6r7vHHSoZTXONFMeamF h3MLCHTVYnJbOr9d7rbKDH6Hqjb/YhoIEB1DzGo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzQQdwMlyRNrw6VeMlhyHm+SVr3ke03Pr3nImwMCVjNn5Wf5yNoY7DAgV5vLsKPdHLmeJrsdutMA/nJbFvAN90=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:44c1:: with SMTP id z1mr18385402wrr.162.1573881871836; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 21:24:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <a93e3290-e31f-dbd2-a39c-2895026f59ee@earthlink.net> <CAPK2Dexd=Zo9B3GfoHEvTUGCVyK1X+spVS168ONzWO8tDrp1OQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPK2DexXyT0pdu6Bjptj3AZL8VwsNbK=K1-UGkKyYL+1eQFquQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALypLp8c6kOf1MVP9vvk3-77PVQco_FWkc0cstBzVfdFUEtufg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPK2DexyKTyfZaUR81YFHEWrFREutoXVmsZQ8Q2pCud5Wx_Cww@mail.gmail.com> <CALypLp--W7gGE6-2A90ZBrGvQui0rRQhRF4XRYvQa6Ss0jn2Lg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPK2DezuRL7BggRF5UNC0OnDNEGinRKg8+S4Uh-yHrF-af6BOg@mail.gmail.com> <CALypLp-vTw8Wa=uip0g1gSJswjdNkv7-8iqJGs6mxsYCUkn--A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALypLp-vTw8Wa=uip0g1gSJswjdNkv7-8iqJGs6mxsYCUkn--A@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 14:23:59 +0900
Message-ID: <CAPK2Dey-65zPc_zn+P3=+0warWyLMQp1z66V7-FjhYznfKLMZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@kaloom.com>, its <its@ietf.org>, skku-iotlab-members@googlegroups.com, 김증일 글로벌R&D마스터 <endland@hyundai.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e3ae7b05976fed6f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/5i2LZZFCDx6xqn6DMXYHkYIMMU4>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-11
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: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 05:24:39 -0000
Carlos, Thanks for your detailed comments. I will prepare for the revision with your comments early next week. Could we have a meeting to review my new revision, and revise it for WGLC before the end of this IETF-106 meeting? I will be available next Tuesday and Wednesday, so please let me know your available time. Thanks. Paul On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 2:06 PM CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> wrote: > Hi Paul, > > I’ve reviewed the draft. I think the draft is in better shape than last > time I checked, but it is not yet ready. I’m afraid I have quite some > comments. Please see below: > > - I think the title (and the text in many parts of the document) should be > changed to refer to IPv6, instead of IP, as the document (and the WG) is > IPv6 specific. Another example: we should not mention Mobile IPv4 in the > document (as done currently in page 2). > > - Page 4 (but also later in different parts of the doc): Mobility Anchor > (MA): is this term coined somewhere you can reference? It is mentioned as a > component of a vehicular architecture, but it is not discussed why, not > even why an IPv6 mobility solution is needed in a vehicular scenario. It > might seem like straightforward, but you need to present that need. > > - Page 4: the terms OBU and RSU should be aligned with what the basic OCB > draft uses (IP-OBU and IP-RSU) and probably refer to that document. Besides > I understand OBU and RSUs as single IP devices, not set of nodes as the > document currently defines. > > - Page 5: V2I2P and V2I2V deserve additional explanation. > > - The use cases should serve not only to present areas where vehicular > networks can be used, but also to support requirements for IPv6 in such > environments. Current text does not help much on identifying requirements. > > - Section 4 should introduce a generic vision of what vehicular networks > architectures might look like, again to help the purpose of identifying > requirements. I’m afraid current section is making quite a lot of > assumptions about how the architecture looks like without properly > justifying them. Examples are: the presence of a Mobility Anchor, using > Ethernet links to interconnect RSUs or the subnet/prefix model. I think the > proposed architecture might make sense, but it is not THE architecture (if > it was, we should be referring to the doc where it is specified), but an > example of potential architecture. It’d be right to present an exemplary > architecture to support the use cases and problem statement, but the > document should clearly state that. > > - Related to the former, the document assumes that IPv6 mobility is a key > requirement. While I don’t disagree with that, the document should support > that assumption backed up by requirements from use cases. > > - Figure 2: the vision of the RSU having multiple routers, hosts, etc, > inside... where does it come from? It’s new to me. Similarly, on the > vehicle I’d expect Router1 to be an IP-OBU. Related to this comment, first > paragraph of Section 4.2 talks about the RSU architecture without providing > any reference. Why is it needed to have a DNS server internally? I don’t > see why this is needed or specific to vehicular networks. > > - Page 12: all the discussion about the need for exchanging prefix > information comes out of the blue, there is no proper discussion why this > is a requirement. And then the document gets into mentioning an example of > solution for this, which is something that should be avoided (this document > is not about solution space), unless we were analyzing different approaches > to solve a given problem. > > - Page 12: as mentioned above, I don’t see why we need the DNS discussion. > > - Figure 2 makes assumptions on network topology and subnetting that is > not explained. > > - Page 14: the discussion on prevention of false reports of accidents is > application-layer specific, not IPv6 specific, and therefore it is not in > the scope of this document. > > - Section 5.1 is a critical one (actually the whole section 5) and I think > it needs significant work. I’d discuss link model issues before going into > neighbor discovery protocol specific issues. Current text seem to have > already a solution in mind when describing the issues, while what it should > do is derive requirements, and explain why current solutions are not > sufficient. For example, it should not start saying that DAD and ND-related > parameters need to be extended before introducing why current DAD and ND is > not sufficient. > > - All the discussion on ND timers is again very much solution specific and > should be avoided. And the discussion about NHTSA and the collision is also > not appropriate, as one thing is the delay at application layer and a > different thing is the timers used for ND. > > - Page 16 and page 17: the text assumes a prefix model for a vehicular > network that is not properly introduced and justified. Issues cannot be > derived from the use of a prefix model that is not well introduced. > > - Page 18: the discussion about notifying changes on the IP address should > be removed if it is assumed that there is an IPv6 mobility protocol in > place (which seems to be the case) as this is taken care by it. > > - Section 5.1.3: again it goes too much into solution space without > presenting the scenario and the issues. This document is not about talking > solutions. > > - Section 5.2: same comment as before. Solution space specifics should be > removed. > > - Section 6 needs significant work as well. First, I’d like to have some > kind of structure in terms of presenting the security and privacy issues > that are specific to the vehicular environment. And then, we need to have a > list of issues/requirements instead of again going too much into solution > space. > > We can sit together in Singapore to discuss about how to address these > comments. > > Thanks, > > Carlos > > On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 08:30, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < > jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Carlos, >> Great! >> >> Sure you soon in Singapore. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Paul >> >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:08 AM CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO < >> cjbc@it.uc3m.es> wrote: >> >>> Hi Paul, >>> >>> I have to do my review first. You'll have it by the Singapore meeting so >>> we can discuss there. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Carlos >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 3:29 AM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < >>> jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Carlos, >>>> I am wondering what next steps our IPWAVE PS draft will take. >>>> If you are satisfied with my revision, could you do the WG Last Call on >>>> this version? >>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-12 >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> Paul >>>> >>>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 1:19 AM CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO < >>>> cjbc@it.uc3m.es> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the revision. I'll review the document and let you know >>>>> about next steps. >>>>> >>>>> Carlos >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 12:12 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < >>>>> jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Russ and Carlos, >>>>>> I have submitted the revision (-12) of IPWAVE PS draft as you know. >>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-12 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Will you review the revision and move forward to the WGLC or wait for >>>>>> Charlie's another review? >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW, my SKKU team are working for IETF-106 IPWAVE Hackathon Project >>>>>> to show the data delivery >>>>>> between two 802.11-OCB embedded systems such as the text and >>>>>> web-camera video. >>>>>> We will work to demonstrate the IPv6 over 802.11-OCB. >>>>>> This is a collaboration work with Hyundai Motors. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>> Paul >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>> From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> >>>>>> Date: Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 6:57 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for >>>>>> draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-11 >>>>>> To: Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@earthlink.net> >>>>>> Cc: its@ietf.org <its@ietf.org>, Sandra Cespedes < >>>>>> scespedes@ing.uchile.cl>, <skku-iotlab-members@skku.edu>, Mr. >>>>>> Jaehoon Paul Jeong <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Charlie, >>>>>> I have addressed your comments below and your editorial changes, >>>>>> submitting the revision: >>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-12 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, I addressed Sandra's comments about the definition of an RSU as >>>>>> an edge computing system >>>>>> having multiple routers and servers (including DNS server), as shown >>>>>> in Figure 2. >>>>>> >>>>>> I attach the revision letter for your double-checking. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your valuable and constructive comments. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>> Paul >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 1:08 PM Charlie Perkins < >>>>>> charles.perkins@earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello folks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I made a review of the document >>>>>>> draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-11.txt. Besides editorial >>>>>>> comments, I had some other more substantive comments on the >>>>>>> document, as >>>>>>> follows. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First, I thought that the document should contain an easily >>>>>>> identifiable >>>>>>> problem statement. Here is some text that I devised for that >>>>>>> purpose, >>>>>>> which could fit naturally at the beginning of Section 5. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In order to specify protocols using the abovementioned >>>>>>> architecture >>>>>>> for VANETs, IPv6 core protocols have to be adapted to overcome >>>>>>> certain >>>>>>> challenging aspects of vehicular networking. Since the vehicles >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> likely to be moving at great speed, protocol exchanges need to be >>>>>>> completed in a time relatively small compared to the lifetime of >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> link between a vehicle and an RSU, or between two vehicles. This >>>>>>> has a major impact on IPv6 neighbor discovery. Mobility >>>>>>> management >>>>>>> is also vulnerable to disconnections that occur before the >>>>>>> completion >>>>>>> of identify verification and tunnel management. This is >>>>>>> especially >>>>>>> true given the unreliable nature of wireless communications. >>>>>>> Finally, >>>>>>> and perhaps most importantly, proper authorization for vehicular >>>>>>> protocol >>>>>>> messages must be assured in order to prevent false reports of >>>>>>> accidents >>>>>>> or other mishaps on the road, which would cause horrific misery >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> modern urban environments. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Although geographic routing is mentioned early in the document, it >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> not discussed in later sections. This makes me wonder whether the >>>>>>> early >>>>>>> mention is really relevant. In fact, for fast moving objects, I >>>>>>> think >>>>>>> it is already questionable whether geographic routing has value. >>>>>>> For >>>>>>> the RSUs, it is a lot easier to imagine a good use for geographic >>>>>>> routing, or perhaps some other use of geographic information to >>>>>>> establish links between application endpoints. If geographic >>>>>>> algorithms >>>>>>> are mentioned at all, a lot more development is needed to establish >>>>>>> relevance to the problem statement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> More description is needed for OCB in the Terminology section. It >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> also be a good idea to include definitions for "context-aware" and >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> platooning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> class-based safety plan needs a definition and a list of classes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As a general comment, it seems to me that a proposed architecture is >>>>>>> usually considered to be part of the solution, not the problem >>>>>>> statement. In the case of this document, the architecture is really >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> depiction of IPv6 as it might be normally considered to live in a >>>>>>> multi-network deployment (e.g., between a lot of cars and RSUs). >>>>>>> But >>>>>>> anyway some care has to be taken so that the proposed architecture >>>>>>> doesn't otherwise place strong limits on acceptable solutions. So, >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> example, in section 4.1, it needs to be clear whether or not a >>>>>>> single >>>>>>> subnet prefix can span multiple vehicles. This is an important >>>>>>> choice. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In section 5.1.1., a claim is made that a new link model is >>>>>>> required. I >>>>>>> think this is a very ambitious claim, and I am not even quite sure >>>>>>> what >>>>>>> is meant. IPv6 already provides for "on-link" and "off-link" >>>>>>> variations >>>>>>> on subnet operation. Unless I am missing something here, the claim >>>>>>> should be made much more clear (or else retracted). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Similarly, the suggestion that VANETs need to be merging and >>>>>>> partitioning as part of the problem statement seems at least >>>>>>> ambitious >>>>>>> and might present a very high bar that could disqualify otherwise >>>>>>> suitable solutions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It would be nice to have a citation about why current >>>>>>> implementations of >>>>>>> address pseudonyms are insufficient for the purposes described in >>>>>>> section 5.1.2. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems to me that the discussion in section 5.1.3 lives almost >>>>>>> entirely in solution space. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In section 5.1.4, it was not clear to me about why Neighbor >>>>>>> Discovery >>>>>>> really needs to be extended into being a routing protocol. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems to me that section 5.3 really belongs in section 6. Also, >>>>>>> even >>>>>>> a perfectly authorized and legitimate vehicle might be persuaded >>>>>>> somehow >>>>>>> to run malicious applications. I think that this point is not >>>>>>> sufficiently covered in the current text. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Charlie P. >>>>>>> Blue Sky Networks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> its mailing list >>>>>>> its@ietf.org >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> =========================== >>>>>> Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. >>>>>> Associate Professor >>>>>> Department of Software >>>>>> Sungkyunkwan University >>>>>> Office: +82-31-299-4957 >>>>>> Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com, pauljeong@skku.edu >>>>>> Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php >>>>>> <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> =========================== >>>>>> Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. >>>>>> Associate Professor >>>>>> Department of Software >>>>>> Sungkyunkwan University >>>>>> Office: +82-31-299-4957 >>>>>> Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com, pauljeong@skku.edu >>>>>> Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php >>>>>> <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Special Issue "Beyond 5G Evolution": >>>>> https://www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics/special_issues/beyond_5g >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> =========================== >>>> Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. >>>> Associate Professor >>>> Department of Software >>>> Sungkyunkwan University >>>> Office: +82-31-299-4957 >>>> Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com, pauljeong@skku.edu >>>> Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php >>>> <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Special Issue "Beyond 5G Evolution": >>> https://www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics/special_issues/beyond_5g >>> >>> >> >> -- >> =========================== >> Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. >> Associate Professor >> Department of Software >> Sungkyunkwan University >> Office: +82-31-299-4957 >> Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com, pauljeong@skku.edu >> Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php >> <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php> >> > -- > Sent from a mobile device, please excuse any brevity or typing errors. > -- =========================== Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Software Sungkyunkwan University Office: +82-31-299-4957 Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com, pauljeong@skku.edu Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>
- [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-ipwa… Charlie Perkins
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong