Re: [ipwave] [Int-dir] link-local text (Re: Intdir early review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34)

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Mon, 15 April 2019 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@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 AD1E112021F; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 14:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.669
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 2zkRmPUJo_GY; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 14:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-f49.google.com (mail-wr1-f49.google.com [209.85.221.49]) (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 BF5AE1201E2; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 14:02:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-f49.google.com with SMTP id w10so23821972wrm.4; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 14:02:31 -0700 (PDT)
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=Nrn8jvwVcI9ymoUa949GkNLFy8sh15YgCObwn24aL9A=; b=t/kISVIuBR4E3M0gpXUtxNT+6byqRNeeVjZBJ6mWBXi+jB7wffkluTuxPTc22pt1+Z q1NlioCT5o6yjGICC2CvwLWiI/pEiHevGEvIUXHk1+20BAbXkiXL2KgGChYGUFxOu1Z+ 5gUpngMZcEnbDTYOiNvodBc9lJp0/pj7JjztIOQUeiYSD6BhKmeCQlnDTfDmauFSeU4T JsKycfo2aFa0wxIoLSlWp8K7xAZ9HRRIUMxTcyDVfRScq5SEm8d44MxpYttBNdp/IUa2 pUQNhcdtZPlPA02QLrvv291cmJhXbAWKIcE/mHKHDn4+hKgzLZdqcDlzGQj+NXvPyAyC plYQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV5ph4IRHS67b25jmZPuA0PqB+WQzoM6gvzbAEMnwUFdl9fVg2C MBP0bsO6ezOezR/NAQAqEEY0JZtUSTYdmJ27T3o=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwfQdVPbsCK77TsM4eZXCAm/HD8UGNoQnvqJPmv4N51AUCWtcDjWunyuOEMqi8cYEbgtLQvM/IZlIWnPyyPyPI=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:ec4e:: with SMTP id w14mr50711870wrn.53.1555362149987; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 14:02:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <155169869045.5118.3508360720339540639@ietfa.amsl.com> <bcb6d12d-5b21-1f10-1afe-221321f8e7a6@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqd5t77B5ij3ot-F-ucx5+3A7LATC-VTBx3w2_kCDD8fNA@mail.gmail.com> <96574d8b-c5f4-c641-4a79-47974a18d87e@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqeiRCGggRTHsspAYYb6xuZz_qwNME0XVb7s_HiYxhHiSg@mail.gmail.com> <34ADFA7B-3F2C-450A-BDD5-9E8A597F0CE8@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <34ADFA7B-3F2C-450A-BDD5-9E8A597F0CE8@cisco.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 14:02:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqd3KNB5g0f6GFxe1W+7tDPOS-h=vE1LNM5Jv+omg6KrJw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, "<int-dir@ietf.org>" <int-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@ietf.org>, "its@ietf.org" <its@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007277a1058697f88a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/KGk3Egcky2KLxXy5D6gYVV8V5mw>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] [Int-dir] link-local text (Re: Intdir early review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34)
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: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 21:02:34 -0000

At Mon, 15 Apr 2019 19:48:53 +0000,
"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:

> The point on multilink subnet is that link local address that is limited
to the link cannot reach all nodes in the MLSN. This illustrates that a
link and a subnet are very different beasts, whereby the former is physical
and the latter logical.

Yes, I understand that.

>  The sentence that requires using a link local prefix on a subnet is
therefore non sensical and denotes a confusion between the concepts. The
text discussed below is about link not subnet.

Agreed, that's exactly why I wondered whether the intent was to say
it's NOT a multi-link subnet.  But, it looks like the intent is to
just state somewhat obvious: "link-local addresses must be considered
on-link", so it's probably better not to bother discussing whether
it's a multi-link subnet or not.  And then, I agree that any
link-local discussion should belong to somewhere else than the
"subnet" section.

I personally still think Section 4.3 is the best place, and combining
all of my understanding of the intent, it might read, e.g.:

   There are several types of IPv6 addresses [RFC4291], [RFC4193], that
   MAY be assigned to an 802.11-OCB interface.  Among these types of
   addresses, the interface MUST at least have one link-local IPv6
   unicast address as specified in [RFC4291].  Only those link-local
   addresses MAY be formed using an EUI-64 identifier, in particular
   during transition time.

   [2nd paragraph unchanged]

   Any other link-local addresses than those assigned to the
   802.11-OCB interface MUST be considered on-link in terms of on-link
   determination as defined in [RFC4861].

(The added 3rd paragraph looks too obvious to say to me, but that's
what I might say if I have to say something about it).

Anyway, again, it's just an observer's suggestion for hopefully making
it more readable without changing the author's intent.  If it rather
introduce more confusion or controversy, please just ignore it.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya