Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-20

Abdussalam Baryun <> Fri, 17 September 2021 21:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA26E3A159E for <>; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 14:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 05VzA0-j1PNL for <>; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 14:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::334]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FBC63A159C for <>; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 14:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a194-20020a1c98cb000000b0030b41ac389fso2999717wme.2 for <>; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 14:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=p7e+IlxCVUscS+Lvsvj235J0lBqy/sb/zyguXZHPZpo=; b=mXPac+CCD+BLyjTz1eqQ4lZqlwtmvxPV4LQ2VJDUzBwWebSCsLbvwFk/8MFPdP0REg At34scvcHzfIlkb9Oq2WJrluKHAHOFQS2TLSl+bFz7ujc9YydCDOEQL4nM0VV3N2Uho2 JaNXMKghdrGn9vrqTq3AoJr8HUJfryObwbqi1n4QA1NsifG2tLjk4OkOrKpgXVsStxDA r26vFlPVdBALkaN+ngcAHVBo/OJgBhm6hMZOGANqq6frnR3avckTTl0T/MWrM5FslMMT fWd2UtMaxdnn/VgysfZOYfwI2o62BJ69j8scuNspxpL5lc2aGs3zQd4emrj65cMEOWe7 V7WQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=p7e+IlxCVUscS+Lvsvj235J0lBqy/sb/zyguXZHPZpo=; b=z2P4H9RFdM8mKYW4ojG2rCrK17jlsNLAErV/SLISGyuhRwlUeDaFRjjJb42Bv/O/sK 4NBA92xrIyIbDp1fRwPkrVArDb6oVu4wFhwnrLSsSvAu22za59AvU6JnWBYNSBfT3X/F svwiLKrO+udoDxLrUA0yFdKce8DsoI/aCBqoqDIvR1iXEVtIhSjUAKKP57nto5yZHrWt 8wPWyPh2JJGBXJ5BtgoZjR+5VrlB4OhOTrQrrVy189Eko/sB03nkij5JAhPME6upypEg cELbKvdvyKw+opGkgBGCk4H97o3V4tzFEXA3wrxku+q+w2ZRJubyRHVX8EjY4xOgE2n+ YVBg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530iO83k/bCMuPV6eW7987ucncLE8xKzUwb9d2WjcIqQJ9tGO72G B7JtpUzPqAOHOqqDOHS3Xy4m5A9sLe6vy6tCYdCWtpqwNtw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzRasfb2pgYxjtcuTclQI4mBtplTuO+K+9IAdSnZZS6rf1r8yYmtafer5OpXRIdFYK0MMsENAEHIgrhTNiHZrs=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:a911:: with SMTP id s17mr12396473wme.84.1631912848560; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 14:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 22:58:43 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <>
Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <>, its <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a494d605cc375181"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-20
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPWAVE - IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG at IETF <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 21:07:33 -0000

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your efforts, so do you mean now it is pushed to IESG? if yes
then ok its good news for me and the WG.
We I don't need other work to be pushed as primarily in this WG-doc.

comments below,

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 3:06 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <> wrote:

> Hi Abdussalam,
> Thanks for your opinion.

good comments and suggests, I would prefer that you commented on it.

> The IPWAVE PS Draft has been made and updated by IPWAVE WG since October
> 2016, that is, for the last 5 years.

yes 5 year for informational..... and I am following, so no problem we need
to push it by replies to get it through,

> As the editor of this draft, I think that the coauthors as contributors
> and I have reflected the opinions of IPWAVE WG on this draft.

not sure I understand your statement. I want that we progress in the
process for all docs (it is informational draft). Therefore, I supported
Alex's comment because reviewer has suggested some things that do not
reflect any of this WG.