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

[Nabil Benamar <[e-mail]>]

Dear Éric,

I would like to sincerely thank you for your review. Much appreciated!

Please see my answers in-line below.

On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 4:33 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> 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 ;-)
>

Intersting comment. The thing is that there is no association process in
OCB. Though it belongs to the IEEE 802.11 familly, there are some
differences.
As we said in the text:

OCB (outside the context of a basic service set - BSS): is a mode of
   operation in which a STA is not a member of a BSS and does not
   utilize IEEE Std 802.11 authentication, association, or data

   confidentiality.


> 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).
>

The link model is the following: STA --- 802.11-OCB --- STA.  In

   vehicular networks, STAs can be IP-RSUs and/or IP-OBUs

>
> -- 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) ?
>

I agree. We need to add a mention about who sends RAs

>
> -- Missing --
>
> Duplicate Address Detection is only mentioned in Appendix I and it is
> unclear
> whether optimistic DAD (even for LLA) should/must be used.
>
In section 4.5.1, we say that :

This document is scoped for Address Resolution (AR) and Duplicate

   Address Detection (DAD) per RFC 4861
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4861>

Thanks again.

-- 

Best Regards

Nabil Benamar
Associate Professor
Department of Computer Sciences
School of Technology
Moulay Ismail University
Meknes. Morocco