Re: [ipwave] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-08 - informational references

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 08/10/2017 à 23:56, Abdussalam Baryun a écrit :
> Hi Alex,
> 
> I know the referencing is a minor issue, but it did confuse my reading 
> and understanding of objectives.
> 
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Alexandre Petrescu 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     Le 05/10/2017 à 17:33, Abdussalam Baryun a écrit :
>     [...]
> 
>                  [AB]   Please delete those documents which are
>             not ietf-wg-adopted
>                  or maybe have many errors (there are errors in some
>             RFCs but they
>                  are very few because many discussions and reviews). I
>             think we
>                  adopted this document and we need to delete documents
>             that are not
>                  even adopted. However, 2464 is not for wireless
>             communications.
> 
> 
> 
>              Please do not delete the references.  We welcome references
>         to other
>              documents, whether or not they are IETF documents.
> 
> 
>         Yes we may welcome when needed, but I think the doc is
>         referencing as a survey but please note this is not a
>         survey/informational doc.
> 
> 
>     I am still not convinced about removing that.  That
>     survey/informational is looking at joining with the problem
>     statement drafts.  At that point it would make sense to refer to
>     them, unless you disagree.
> 
> 
> any way that was my opinion to remove any extra and not needed info and 
> non adopted drafts. I respect your opinion. However, we need to focus 
> our draft to its objective with less as possible literature overview.

I agree with you.

However, the references that are individual submissions are not 
literature overview.  The literature overview is just one part of one of 
the references, which is now a WG item 
(draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-survey); despite the filename 
that suggests "survey" I think it will also contain problem statement, 
scenarios, and probably more.

The individual submission drafts are now two: draft-perkins and 
draft-hinden.

The draft-perkins is probably the only place that could help clarifying 
with the multicast discussion.  Until that is clarified I removed the 
request for a new multicast group.

The draft-hinden is probably the only place that could help clarifying 
the fe80::/10 vs fe80::/64 nit.  Until that is clarified I propose we 
discuss on this email list about this nit.  Can you help?

Alex

> 
> 
>     in -09 we say:
> 
>         In the published literature, many documents describe aspects and
>         problems related to running IPv6 over 802.11-OCB:
>         [I-D.ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-survey].
> 
> 
>     Additionally,
> 
>     There are a three other individual submission documents that we
>     refer to.  I believe they are necessary at this time.
> 
>     draft-perkins-intarea-multicast-ieee802: a good starting point for
>     WiFi problems on multicast.  If no other reference, then I keep I.
> 
> 
> I agree its ok,
> 
> 
>     draft-petrescu-its-scenarios-reqs: it's because we need to tell in
>     this draft what kinds of scenarios we look at (the vehicular
>     scenarios).  If there is some other RFC or draft that describes the
>     scenarios then I can put that instead.
> 
> ok
> 
> 
>     draft-hinden-6man-rfc2464bis: it's because it's the only little try
>     to update rfc2464 at this time.  If it gets adopted in 6man then it
>     will be fine.
> 
> This I disagree to include because not necessary,