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

[Nabil Benamar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,

Thank you for your review and comments.

You raised a very important point that was discussed extensively on the ML
and then we asked the IEEE 802.11 members (thanks to Dorothy Stanly) to
provide us with a review to help us clarify this point.

Here is what we got from them:

.  *Suggest to simply state that the data is transmitted with “User
Priority” of Background (numerically 1 or 2)*, and leave the internal
details of how this is accomplished to the 802.11 specification.

User Priority is typically described as a simple integer (not a binary
value), and the mapping of this User Priority to TID header value is
another 802.11 detail, best left to the 802.11 specification.  For example:
in the 802.11 specification the TID field is specified to be *4 bits* in
the header.  The use of these 4 bits to carry the User Priority information
is an internal specification of 802.11 and potentially subject to change.

Suggest using terminology from the MAC SAP in IEEE Std 802.11-2016 Clause
5.2.  This clause intentionally abstracts the exact details of 802.11’s
internal operation, while describing specifically the behavior required by
the user.  For example, the following text:

“In the 802.11 header, the value of the Subtype sub-field in the Frame
Control field MUST be set to 8 (i.e. 'QoS Data'); the value of the Traffic
Identifier (TID) sub-field of the QoS Control field of the 802.11 header
MUST be set to binary 001 (i.e.  User Priority 'Background', QoS Access
Category 'AC_BK').”

*could be replaced by:*

“*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*.”


Thanks again.

On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 5:43 PM Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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/
>
>
>

-- 

Best Regards

Nabil Benamar
Associate Professor
Department of Computer Sciences
School of Technology
Moulay Ismail University
Meknes. Morocco