Re: [ipwave] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 10:28 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 13-Apr-19 02:59, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:
> > If you go back and check 2017 archives, I did raise many of these
> issues.  But, we clearly decided to limit the scope excluding address
> configuration, DAD, ND aspect, link models. When there is such a scope
> statement, it should clearly move these comments to the draft that defines
> how ND works for 802.11-OCB links.
>
> This is of course possible. In general the IETF hasn't done that, but has
> followed the lead set by RFC 2464 with the complete specification of
> IPv6-over-foo in one document.
>

yes this draft-38 is similar to rfc2464.


> However, I don't believe that publishing an RFC about the frame format
> without *simultaneously* publishing an RFC about ND etc would be a good
> idea.


that was done and was good idea by IETF in publishing (RFC2460,
RFC2461,RFC2373),  and (RFC3513, RFC4861,RFC8200), which they are separate
of same IPv6 communication. IMHO it is not good idea to separate IPv6
related protocols because it gets complicated if in one, and it has
different scenarios and use cases. Similarly in ITS if using that IPv6 over
OCB it is good to separate if possible.



> That would leave developers absolutely unable to write useful
> code, and might easily lead to incompatible implementations.


There are many SDOs that are standardizing for ITS so we need
to specify work, otherwise the developer will not wait for us but will do
useful work without us.

AB