Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 second guessing FCC

[Jérôme Härri <[e-mail]>]

Hello Alex,

Agree..this is not the place to make such statement. However, I think if you
add my previously suggested statement, it would be enough to imply that some
'channels' might be restricted to some functions in some countries, but
without being specific...maybe we could add an normative reference to the
FCC and the ECC, leaving room for interpretation..

"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."

BR,

Jérôme

-----Original Message-----
From: its [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
Sent: Friday 10 February 2017 11:59
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 second guessing
FCC

draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00
second guessing FCC

Hello IPWAVErs,

There was a comment clarifying the interpretation of FCC-related text, and
advising against and undesirable but otherwise relatively common practice of
'second guessing' the Commision's oppinion by implementers.

As such, I will remove the following text:

old:
> o  The FCC created two more terms for particular channels 
> fcc-cc-172-184], among others.  The channel 172 (5855MHz to 5865MHz)) 
> is designated "exclusively for [V2V] safety communications for 
> accident avoidance and mitigation, and safety of life and property 
> applications", and the channel 184 (5915MHz to 5925MHz) is designated 
> "exclusively for high-power, longer- distance communications to be 
> used for public-safety applications involving safety of life and 
> property, including road-intersection collision mitigation".
> However, they are not named "control" channels, and the document does 
> not mention any particular restriction on the use of IP on either of 
> these channels.

Alex