IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-networking-survey?

Rex Buddenberg <buddenbergr@gmail.com> Tue, 20 June 2017 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <buddenbergr@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 8296D131577 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 0rPralGVmCHL for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22e.google.com (mail-pf0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22e]) (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 8C877131552 for <its@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id 83so72088200pfr.0 for <its@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kJBEYLRI27s0kTNlEOQixRL5H/KdAENXyvep9qyUUkk=; b=a60ql/YeHUzc+trPyuCBWM5C1Ffq3F2QrYNzBRABBYNNVC42eulK/v3yR+XCyIEomK rXziDiN/xaWZFs8kUt2qIp9OvmlFqCIxAYtPSg7JAc1IRytExwZlGSYcsHtY6iE4+CAI WRcyiAw+TWLVwteIf7qQABeRjHsQo1mXBetqrSiKSyMojegedB/w7Jb6oP0ZGAFTlb3d 46Hvy71X+JJEKDiLdHuGuIU11u7ntwAnt9GfSPlf/hODKi6v2xkdecFCgl9BDDkq/aOK kR9pLxBdRRmOjXjSRk1+Fq5QRDwNlqfXwTIEZq4np9ANgondbe0XrfNh5TkM1fk9Jucf bmQA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kJBEYLRI27s0kTNlEOQixRL5H/KdAENXyvep9qyUUkk=; b=E73yj6yd67Ranjr+ubG693h/kePs4sWvAFTzKSVUZXNzhnq74iEqQZ3OdODUKwtCFE BpXXsTnL1luJ21CnzCR0eZIHWsZwB8HF3zdLA8cpzPGj4TdPvEL5NtTWkrR0MNbYWOwE wjMno/2myJET6VlerHJvQ1GfjhGEU5hgjJmHOrYZaSL2spthIMqdf9OwsmnUZs5pcvsq c7KJevxyvhT0ZKX59ns8Dpc7o9RfuF+V2JQ4uDIlYoaHYKOIY9l+ij8LdaUa1TenWbKe fbg4eszRvxvl3EOD7S7R3r8R3n59m+Kb21i12SKZs32NL+woZMMi1fsiDLdJOcQ/v/uT 7SSA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOway1SQQcb0SREQMTs2Kl71U+GX7wO6tG4lXC5o5Auo0wQfkPIv KXUB3vCOL/CA8C2Q
X-Received: by 10.99.111.132 with SMTP id k126mr2712179pgc.76.1497977957143; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-71-198-163-21.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [71.198.163.21]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n90sm28837980pfb.127.2017.06.20.09.59.15 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1497977954.2400.149.camel@gmail.com>
From: Rex Buddenberg <buddenbergr@gmail.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, its <its@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:59:14 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CA50A382-F591-4A33-BAF9-1903E107BE02@vigilsec.com>
References: <CA50A382-F591-4A33-BAF9-1903E107BE02@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2 (3.18.5.2-1.fc23)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/8yadBVl-ZXOoJROajp7fdr-REzU>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-networking-survey?
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:59:19 -0000

Russ, et al,

As a _survey_, this ID is fine.  There is value in simply cataloging
the somewhat scattered efforts in one place.  So I'm thinking we should
adopt as 'state of the art in the field'.  So I guess I'm ^ vis
adoption.
     But there are no use cases in the ID itself, only some of the
references.  Therefore the ID does not meet the charter call.  ... at
least not yet.
     Further, there doesn't seem to be much of a sorting model or
taxonomy.  What the ID does not cover (and was not Jeong's intent) is
what is needed but not present.  The use cases should lead to a
taxonomy and eventually an architecture -- should those signposts be
present?  Or is this a proper subject for agenda bashing external to
this draft?

b


On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 09:59 -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
> The IPWAVE WG charter calls for the group to publish an Informational
> document:
> 
>    This group will work on an informational document
>    that will explain the state of the art in the field and describe
>    the use cases that will use IPv6 in order to focus the work of
>    the group.
> 
> Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-networking-
> survey
> as the starting point for this deliverable?
> 
> See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-net
> working-survey/
> 
> Russ
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> its@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email