IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Tue, 20 June 2017 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
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 9EA4E131586 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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=it-uc3m-es.20150623.gappssmtp.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 o-79krVf4PVX for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22f.google.com (mail-wr0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22f]) (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 B0E63131582 for <its@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id y25so60601094wrd.2 for <its@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=it-uc3m-es.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:reply-to:to:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=eudkY35p6UHVRaQKjhQDsvgr0RyfhekGuG+eFa0P88k=; b=lZYPOGhP1pTS2oxkiNTGCme35zxZRMVytcf7YLL5mBt2tx91nkJngnByIH0Y36j7EE t1V/UpCzHQU1by6eCFmYOBeNFHm9dy6IxGpON9rrwRJzSlrH1tE6mzwX9ifS84bfnCVA DBwOFTPhCPwXbUiVHKwwlJ/06WsDiUvGAWC0YUxuc/JEViJcDne4yG5oi1/s7PsOmK+b mb94jzpWdFH8KeZDMbg6EdKVIU9QJ61czM8TMsc0idCSb0Lzf/l1MQ5VhPHl9wa1OKRx F2uNo3SRBouvDzzxXSHVWEa/XBbLZL8mzv2bJNv1HSOX6vzTi+Vn983xOWu459T3OTVh aGLQ==
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:reply-to:to:date :in-reply-to:references:organization:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=eudkY35p6UHVRaQKjhQDsvgr0RyfhekGuG+eFa0P88k=; b=nxhYHxJrMBQ6yd3/nqWKXyYtOAEhGdvD9j4glhk1Kh6SA22mV3uRURz9cI8BICImRd skkdWCVEkmCzdPkKzWNFO9SlxirUh7M9ulp5L0Ax+C3jnj9dmr0JagSxz6WTNf2eBqkA 2HTq58/FWdeMPn053zC5pghJ9tB3HZ52KLKt/uDYsFZGoh0iAon71uqWOdvjFDDPm1Q/ SQXGRR1vA/9DCgzt4xtKs4/vROQu5nIzQFaL5NHv6q3uWiySPvxtOavR+Hk5WZ6GQDq0 q4zS+kdRgnmZt+9VSkWOOn8btaN/Bv54DidrIqmV1kHJtmuWo2NChfrvFA4jR5QOJnC0 FRUQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOzgNdJTCo/lsvpGvuW1JF6RlVXJGydsrMVPAiF22egFd58nc5On 2NV5+AuM+Wih25nxYck=
X-Received: by 10.28.1.85 with SMTP id 82mr3603576wmb.88.1497979447211; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from acorde ([2001:720:410:1010:e543:a76d:b86f:b2c5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 18sm11873343wmt.6.2017.06.20.10.24.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1497979445.3352.73.camel@it.uc3m.es>
From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
To: Rex Buddenberg <buddenbergr@gmail.com>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, its <its@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 19:24:05 +0200
In-Reply-To: <1497977954.2400.149.camel@gmail.com>
References: <CA50A382-F591-4A33-BAF9-1903E107BE02@vigilsec.com> <1497977954.2400.149.camel@gmail.com>
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6-1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/CYpZNWqfWnXdYTNSUOdC552CVJY>
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 17:24:11 -0000

Dear Rex,

On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 09:59 -0700, Rex Buddenberg wrote:
> 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?

Your point is very valid. The use cases should be covered by the
document that the WG is chartered to produce. This does not mean that
the current candidate draft can be adopted as this stage and the use
cases then be added once the document is under the WG control. I read
your mail as supportive of adoption of the draft with this assumption.
Please correct me if this is not the case.

Regarding the architectural work that might be triggered by the covered
use cases, that could be discussed at a later stage, once the WG has
met all the milestones (or is close to do so) and if the ADs consider
it appropriate.

Thanks,

Carlos

> 
> 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-n
> > et
> > working-survey/
> > 
> > Russ
> > _______________________________________________
> > its mailing list
> > its@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
> 
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> its@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email