[ipwave] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-48: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-48: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you  for the work put into this document. Interesting use case ;-)

Beside the 3 COMMENTs below, I have a question: my understanding is that this
is a P2P link, so, layer-3 multicast packets could easily be sent over unicast
layer-2 IF the other peer is known with its layer-2 address which is possibly
known when forming a OCB "association" (but I am not a WiFi person at all).
Just curious here ;-)

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 3 --

It is unclear whether a IP-OBU <-> IP-OBU is a use case of this document (it is
mentionned in 4.6 though but it would help the reader to have it mentioned in
section 3).

-- Section 4.4 --

In the discussion of SLAAC, there should be a mention on the presence or
absence of Router Advertisement and if RA are used: - which entity sends this
RA (probably IP-RSU), - does RA contain PIO ? - what are the recommendation for
router lifetime (and PIO timers) ?

-- Missing --

Duplicate Address Detection is only mentioned in Appendix I and it is unclear
whether optimistic DAD (even for LLA) should/must be used.