Re: [ipwave] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-26.txt

"Templin (US), Fred L" <> Tue, 22 February 2022 14:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 556A33A10D1 for <>; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 06:35:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.396
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.396 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 k-Ew_cnbARHZ for <>; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 06:35:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 881303A10A8 for <>; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 06:34:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 21MEYvaT028230; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 09:34:58 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=boeing-s1912; t=1645540498; bh=5+7G0joIuR3HBBVsOKOIeuTss3xTwotKC7exvYpfZM4=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:From; b=FBvcWD3uOqqAny3Gu/N5pkyZ0d+g+CyDHd03zcAbBuTlnyhLS20aJUFDNyv33Tcqk SMcJnPLDFrXfkcCWbM3hPDRZssujBPJyMT2o79JutewKRVUaHC0WIvCMwwTrXRPzga 23N/H8W3AyThS6YGrC+K1cnxglUI0m3gi4TU1tN1HELgd+B4h59t0C2dSUyo8d+mU1 e+nz/zdIxdKfutgXwtNAdPWkHkKHkLgIpGEZ80LermIT0IHY4OyApiNwiQqiUiJ/lv TFyKL2xR/5uazFIN8YEPwDE7jXK0wrIJY2R45lA7Sdp0h6zMPjQ7KwhXRN7JDjaCya 6AFLz6oAvCIXA==
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 21MEYlOg028088 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 22 Feb 2022 09:34:47 -0500
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2375.18; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 06:34:46 -0800
Received: from ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8]) by ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8%2]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.018; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 06:34:46 -0800
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <>
To: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <>, Russ Housley <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [ipwave] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-26.txt
Thread-Index: Adgn+QchHahVfkvWSjyBIUBX+/2yUQ==
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 14:34:45 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-tm-snts-smtp: B8A8A9076A5ECEFC27E89F73C018C8D531FE6C1108E01894788F2ED59AD932DA2000:8
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_3532d900b4f441f5a7bfdc1ec1c42b9bboeingcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-26.txt
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: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 14:35:07 -0000

The way the document is now, it reads as an endorsement for a particular approach.
The document was good last time I read it (which is a while ago) but I guess someone
got you to make drastic changes without my knowing about it. The document cannot
go forward in its current form.


From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong []
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 7:50 PM
To: Russ Housley <>; Templin (US), Fred L <>
Cc:; Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [ipwave] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-26.txt

EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.

Hi Russ,
I have replied to Fred's email just before.
As the editor, I tried to balance the two approaches even though the text of AERO/OMNI is reduced.

I hope you can understand my position as the editor.


Best Regards,

On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 5:26 AM Russ Housley <<>> wrote:
Paul and Fred:

I think the update is more aligned with the documents that are advancing one the IETF stream.  That said, I would not be apposed to the inclusion of the 6M's, but not in a way that claims that there is only one approach way to address these things.  What do you think about that was a way forward?


> On Feb 21, 2022, at 2:56 PM, Templin (US), Fred L <<>> wrote:
> Hi, I started reviewing this and found that it has been completely overhauled since I put my
> comments in many months ago. It has in fact been completely rewritten to favor the shared
> IPv6 multilink subnet model over multihop networks, to favor RPL/6LowPan over standard
> MANET routing protocols, to favor IPv6 ND changes over standard IPv6 ND, and to favor
> multilink DAD. None of that is necessary with AERO/OMNI and the NBMA-based virtual link
> created by the OMNI Adaptation. So, I stopped midway through marking up the document
> with my comments because it has taken a complete left turn and started down a wrong path.
> What is mainly at the heart of the divergence is that the document now embraces the
> multilink IPv6 subnet model vs the AERO/OMNI NBMA link model that was there the last
> time I looked. But, there is no need for such complication when there is a much simpler
> alternative at hand. I notice also that in the appendices the AERO/OMNI "6M's of Mobile
> Internetworking" was removed - at the very least that needs to be restored.
> In its current form, this document has been diverted to go down the wrong path. It
> needs to be either re-balanced or re-written.
> Thanks - Fred
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: its [<>] On Behalf Of Templin (US), Fred L
>> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 7:28 AM
>> To:<>;<>
>> Subject: Re: [ipwave] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-26.txt
>> Hi, it looks like a lot of what was in the draft regarding AERO/OMNI has been cut out
>> so that means I am going to have to re-review it. I will get to this a soon as possible;
>> hopefully in the next couple of days.
>> Fred
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: its [<>] On Behalf Of<>
>>> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 9:00 PM
>>> To:<>
>>> Cc:<>
>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [ipwave] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-26.txt
>>> EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.
>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>>> This draft is a work item of the IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG of the IETF.
>>>        Title           : IPv6 Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE): Problem Statement and Use Cases
>>>        Author          : Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong
>>>     Filename        : draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-26.txt
>>>     Pages           : 49
>>>     Date            : 2022-02-20
>>> Abstract:
>>>   This document discusses the problem statement and use cases of
>>>   IPv6-based vehicular networking for Intelligent Transportation
>>>   Systems (ITS).  The main scenarios of vehicular communications are
>>>   vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and
>>>   vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications.  First, this document
>>>   explains use cases using V2V, V2I, and V2X networking.  Next, for
>>>   IPv6-based vehicular networks, it makes a gap analysis of current
>>>   IPv6 protocols (e.g., IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, Mobility Management,
>>>   and Security & Privacy), and then enumerates requirements for the
>>>   extensions of those IPv6 protocols for IPv6-based vehicular
>>>   networking.
>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>> There is also an htmlized version available at:
>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> its mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> its mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list