IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 absence of addressing the multi-channel service of 802.11 OCB

Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Fri, 10 February 2017 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <tony.li@tony.li>
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 6A8DA129A26 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:07:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham 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 ZUc92mz9UkO2 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:07:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-po-09v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-09v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:168]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 551E0129A1E for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:07:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-po-15v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.239]) by resqmta-po-09v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id cDibceMHhODBvcDjlcGmxz; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 16:07:53 +0000
Received: from [10.120.1.173] ([12.1.72.210]) by resomta-po-15v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id cDhdcgKnC04HZcDhgcad3y; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 16:05:51 +0000
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Message-Id: <50AC41EF-12B0-46B7-AE3B-CBC6ED22DFB0@tony.li>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D59CE7B9-5983-45AF-9667-66D978BCB18B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:05:39 -0800
In-Reply-To: <3046d8b9-0079-99f0-9e9a-f5f88c9c8f5a@cea.fr>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
References: <148052970170.9607.12043916621198119260.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3046d8b9-0079-99f0-9e9a-f5f88c9c8f5a@cea.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfNH4ol+FtjX719UwSgPwhdGON3ZBPb429cP8fjbUgDNHJac5ilBPZf7MK9l/KH60jc5+YFsxwguTpfYFqzt313NIvbWEGYgBAIyDRXZd98mUMEg3N8/v xBQUcKGAvhIfaCIuU423FiwEtkyVdJise+k2R/dqLHeX7+liumjJjrUgjxWWu6NxzO2M19X3aE8npg==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/L-J67ZV7A2HMYBSdqsd1OqN1Whw>
Cc: "its@ietf.org" <its@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 absence of addressing the multi-channel service of 802.11 OCB
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 16:07:54 -0000

> On Feb 10, 2017, at 3:13 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> We received a comment stating that this document does not really address
> the multi-channel service that 802.11 OCB is capable of providing.
> 
> I agree with the comment.
> 
> I have not seen other IPv6-over-foo documents addressing channel issues.
> 
> There is no IPv6-over-WiFi RFC, which could address them.


No RFC has ever been needed for IP over Wi-Fi since the Wi-Fi designers (correctly) concluded that the best course of action was to use Ethernet framing.

The channel selection for Wi-Fi has never been addressed since it has always functioned as a fixed constant out of the scope of interoperability and thus not requiring an RFC.

If someone is proposing a channel changing approach for 802.11 OCB, that would need to be written. Without a proposal on the table, channel selection is left to the management of the consenting stations involved.

Tony

p.s. I find it very disturbing that Alexandre is responding to comments that were apparently not distributed on the list. This is not an open discussion if the comments were not directed to the list.  This is not in keeping with the way that the IETF operates. Could the WG chairs please look into this?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email