Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-11
"Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> Thu, 03 October 2019 09:58 UTC
Return-Path: <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
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 42592120115 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 02:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FREEMAIL_DOC_PDF=0.01, T_HK_NAME_FM_MR_MRS=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Y7zf_vhTr3EY for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 02:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x232.google.com (mail-lj1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EEEC120232 for <its@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 02:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x232.google.com with SMTP id m7so2012079lji.2 for <its@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Oct 2019 02:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SWkJJ3jH+i9d113LynPwQPxiAFrD47052dbFWYrIGRk=; b=JIFIrhRCm9Pk/YXpPLoJ1DxbiUuLUhP/684fbe3k3SYM8vvex2qv5bwk6Fjo4VnjSX fDF5EIS8m5/h6XMUc4ZFvlyP2VuFLvXV6t5VzufGw0LaKIyNWerppc3+YPTlqsB2vgRg zoUdc9mbYtvybfSHZXnb92yI/bgwzyJI0wnAr/CchV1zKXExmrlcIV9xh076BgE2gu2C sROsENOJfkMFKi/7MCybGZHIi0h1OprYHD4gwvxx9C8LmZL1RySTWrKnWZ83C7hrBqfw jQmthGhnoJ3ExJK6lnCoKS2HtO2IgUnNEE47UywFRltdOVZtqVvbBDZmJYNm0H6H5IIo BZCw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SWkJJ3jH+i9d113LynPwQPxiAFrD47052dbFWYrIGRk=; b=sGRT3T24eoCATACF8MrOvS3Bsu6D2qJexDH3ieieulYr8k8nCBXqxgCCTebKX2EOyj WUsH19dZZz9SJHMpXrN+gaeh2A+YHSMgDoYnwnQ9CF7SL3LT5wu5KHxOnIFE7Wkhuxpp zlgf0FrzQvaJkb30fEsPQB0qPe0OrWvDij26f89cm5DNCtd4oP0hlLpbVRgZs1H/acJq a1KuVqDMIxotzPfKPs2u+9phY3s8Wl/C8J63lDTC0GQRq7iSrTgeEpSbGLxAGBkzCdqU skhcJlppyk/ubVHxWBLypQzWnsapqwUWuEadFs6Ab1dXnfIcRHoYzFjdRkJbLBK2+CWw MxIA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXW+YGt+sCY72PpF5iD4obeCa7Tf6kMKJcGtHKy2phZeuwdIlMX iSR5cx0uFRm3VX+cBJjbwiywOqKBbnYZg+vxgd0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxYdZoVP1S+l4EIqzY5LmlxvOGbuzh8hBOUBCpcYGdSt1hx44C0XJjVu66TJHkWUf9z4YX74p51kgroQcbmR4U=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:86d5:: with SMTP id n21mr5523510ljj.1.1570096713232; Thu, 03 Oct 2019 02:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <a93e3290-e31f-dbd2-a39c-2895026f59ee@earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <a93e3290-e31f-dbd2-a39c-2895026f59ee@earthlink.net>
From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2019 18:57:55 +0900
Message-ID: <CAPK2Dexd=Zo9B3GfoHEvTUGCVyK1X+spVS168ONzWO8tDrp1OQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
Cc: "its@ietf.org" <its@ietf.org>, Sandra Cespedes <scespedes@ing.uchile.cl>, skku-iotlab-members@skku.edu, "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="000000000000de13730593fea0d5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/RAj-YQkovwcIfXM2dg6d0C1qXIA>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-11
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 03 Oct 2019 09:58:43 -0000
Hi Charlie, I have addressed your comments below and your editorial changes, submitting the revision: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-12 Also, I addressed Sandra's comments about the definition of an RSU as an edge computing system having multiple routers and servers (including DNS server), as shown in Figure 2. I attach the revision letter for your double-checking. Thanks for your valuable and constructive comments. Best Regards, Paul On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 1:08 PM Charlie Perkins < charles.perkins@earthlink.net> wrote: > Hello folks, > > I made a review of the document > draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-11.txt. Besides editorial > comments, I had some other more substantive comments on the document, as > follows. > > First, I thought that the document should contain an easily identifiable > problem statement. Here is some text that I devised for that purpose, > which could fit naturally at the beginning of Section 5. > > In order to specify protocols using the abovementioned architecture > for VANETs, IPv6 core protocols have to be adapted to overcome certain > challenging aspects of vehicular networking. Since the vehicles are > likely to be moving at great speed, protocol exchanges need to be > completed in a time relatively small compared to the lifetime of a > link between a vehicle and an RSU, or between two vehicles. This > has a major impact on IPv6 neighbor discovery. Mobility management > is also vulnerable to disconnections that occur before the completion > of identify verification and tunnel management. This is especially > true given the unreliable nature of wireless communications. Finally, > and perhaps most importantly, proper authorization for vehicular > protocol > messages must be assured in order to prevent false reports of accidents > or other mishaps on the road, which would cause horrific misery in > modern urban environments. > > ---------------------------------------------- > > Although geographic routing is mentioned early in the document, it is > not discussed in later sections. This makes me wonder whether the early > mention is really relevant. In fact, for fast moving objects, I think > it is already questionable whether geographic routing has value. For > the RSUs, it is a lot easier to imagine a good use for geographic > routing, or perhaps some other use of geographic information to > establish links between application endpoints. If geographic algorithms > are mentioned at all, a lot more development is needed to establish > relevance to the problem statement. > > --------------------------------------------- > > More description is needed for OCB in the Terminology section. It would > also be a good idea to include definitions for "context-aware" and for > platooning. > > class-based safety plan needs a definition and a list of classes. > > --------------------------------------------- > > As a general comment, it seems to me that a proposed architecture is > usually considered to be part of the solution, not the problem > statement. In the case of this document, the architecture is really a > depiction of IPv6 as it might be normally considered to live in a > multi-network deployment (e.g., between a lot of cars and RSUs). But > anyway some care has to be taken so that the proposed architecture > doesn't otherwise place strong limits on acceptable solutions. So, for > example, in section 4.1, it needs to be clear whether or not a single > subnet prefix can span multiple vehicles. This is an important choice. > > --------------------------------------------- > > In section 5.1.1., a claim is made that a new link model is required. I > think this is a very ambitious claim, and I am not even quite sure what > is meant. IPv6 already provides for "on-link" and "off-link" variations > on subnet operation. Unless I am missing something here, the claim > should be made much more clear (or else retracted). > > Similarly, the suggestion that VANETs need to be merging and > partitioning as part of the problem statement seems at least ambitious > and might present a very high bar that could disqualify otherwise > suitable solutions. > > --------------------------------------------- > > It would be nice to have a citation about why current implementations of > address pseudonyms are insufficient for the purposes described in > section 5.1.2. > > --------------------------------------------- > > It seems to me that the discussion in section 5.1.3 lives almost > entirely in solution space. > > --------------------------------------------- > > In section 5.1.4, it was not clear to me about why Neighbor Discovery > really needs to be extended into being a routing protocol. > > -------------------------------------------- > > It seems to me that section 5.3 really belongs in section 6. Also, even > a perfectly authorized and legitimate vehicle might be persuaded somehow > to run malicious applications. I think that this point is not > sufficiently covered in the current text. > > Regards, > Charlie P. > Blue Sky Networks > > > > _______________________________________________ > its mailing list > its@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its > -- =========================== Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Software Sungkyunkwan University Office: +82-31-299-4957 Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com, pauljeong@skku.edu Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>
- [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-ipwa… Charlie Perkins
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong