[ipwave] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-49: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-49: Discuss

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/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Roman's DISCUSS.

Overall I am unclear on the privacy properties of what this document specifies.
I think it would help to have a clear statement about the circumstances under
which each kind of address generation scheme is recommended. Were RFC 4941
addresses not considered because addresses generated according to RFC 8064 have
functionally equivalent properties given how often moving vehicle change
subnets? For link-local addresses, is it possible to give recommendations for
when IIDs should be re-generated?

= Section 5.2 =

"An Interface ID SHOULD be of length specified in other documents."

Isn't the length specified for each of the two IID generation mechanisms
discussed in Section 4.3 and 4.4?

= Section 5.3 =

"The demand for privacy protection of vehicles' and drivers'
   identities, which could be granted by using a pseudonym or alias
   identity at the same time, may hamper the required confidentiality of
   messages and trust between participants"

Pseudonymity and confidentiality are not mutually exclusive, so I think this is
incorrect.


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

Please expand OCB and STA on first use.

= Section 2 =

"Note: compliance with
   standards and regulations set in different countries when using the
   5.9GHz frequency band is required."

I'm not familiar with the standards and regulations being referenced here, but
is there any specific reason why this needs to be said here? Presumably users
of regulated spectrum bands the world over must comply with associated
regulations governing their use. It's not clear to me that it makes sense to
note this here.

= Section 5.1.1 =

"Further
   correlation of this information with other data captured by other
   means, or other visual information (car color, others) MAY constitute
   privacy risks."

The normative MAY is not appropriate here.

= Section 5.2 =

"In 802.11-OCB networks, the MAC addresses MAY change during well
   defined renumbering events."

The normative MAY is not appropriate here (since this is not the 802.11-OCB
spec).