Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 WRA suggestion removal

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 11/02/2017 à 06:28, Dick Roy a écrit :
> I agree with William (as usual :^)). And if you get the text right,
> it should be even "more acceptable".  First the WRA is NOT a
> message, it's a field in the WSA.

Noted.

> IEEE 1609 vetted the contents of the field with IETF people to make
> sure the contents met its requirements ... they did! It is NOT a
> replacement for the IPv6 router advertisement management message;

But it looks like one.

> it is a means to provide sufficient information to a receiver so that
> an IPv6 packet can be formed that will reach its destination with no
> further network layer exchanges between the receiver and the ITS-S
> access router at the roadside.

But that's what an RA is doing too.  An IP Router Advertisement message
provides enough information to a receiver to form an IP address and
communicate with a default router.

I am pretty much sure the two messages (WSA-with-WRA field, and RA) are
redundant.

Moreover, some other important information is absent from both
(timestamps and other).

At least one of them (not both) is very much needed for IP handover
realisation in OCB mode.

> This is really important (and cool) stuff.  Why you wouldn't include
> it is beyond me.


In an IETF document one wouldn't require the presence of a non-IP
message.  It would be a requirement for other SDO.

And it is beyond me :-) why would IETF require an WSA-with-field-WRA
when an IP RA does the same and is widely available too.

Alex

>
> Cheers,
>
> RR
>
> -----Original Message----- From: William Whyte
> [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Friday, February 10,
> 2017 8:33 AM To: Alexandre Petrescu Cc: [e-mail] Subject: Re:
> [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 WRA suggestion
> removal
>
> Why wouldn't this be acceptable? It's a reference to a published
> standard, it should be okay.
>
> Cheers,
>
> William
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 WRA suggestion removal
>>
>> Hello IPWAVErs,
>>
>> We received a warning about the draft suggesting the use of WRA
>> (WAVE Router Advertisement - an IEEE message termed like, but
>> different than, the IP Router Advertisement).  It is said that
>> this suggestion may not be acceptable by IEEE, and as such may be
>> out of scope in this I-D.
>>
>> I will remove this old text in the Handovers section.
>>
>> old:
>>>
>>> Another alternative replacement for the IPv6 Router Advertisement
>>> may be the message 'WAVE Routing Advertisement' (WRA), which is
>>> part of the WAVE Service Advertisement and which may contain
>>> optionally the transmitter location; this message is described in
>>> section 8.2.5 of [ieeep1609.3-D9-2010].
>>
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ its mailing list
>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>
>
>
>
>