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

Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 09 July 2019 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: its@ietf.org
Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A87C81207B1; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 09:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb@ietf.org, Carlos Bernardos <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>, ipwave-chairs@ietf.org, cjbc@it.uc3m.es, its@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.98.3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Message-ID: <156269059867.15866.17764812378863873209.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 09:43:18 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/PPxhGv2wK1bAnyTkYDRCMbSB5hg>
Subject: [ipwave] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-49: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 16:43:21 -0000

Mirja Kühlewind 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

One point on this sentence, which I believe was also commented in the TSV-ART
review (Thanks Jörg!):

sec 4.2: "The mapping to the 802.11 data service MUST use a
   'priority' value of 1, which specifies the use of QoS with a
   'Background' user priority."
I don't think this should be a MUST requirement. I assume the assumption here
is that IP traffic is always some "random" data that is less important than
other V2V communication. However, this is a generic mapping document and should
therefore probably not make such an assumption (or at least it would need to be
spelled out).


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

One editorial high level comment: I seams like all text that was somehow deemed
as out fo scope for the main body of this document got stuffed into the
appendix. Please consider removing what is really not needed in this document
as these pages also take review and RFC Editor time, especially as they seem to
have received less review and therefore have more nits.

nit: sec 4.5.2 s/in OCB mode.A  A future improvement/in OCB mode. A future
improvement/