Re: [ipwave] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-08 - informational references

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex,

I know the referencing is a minor issue, but it did confuse my reading and
understanding of objectives.

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Alexandre Petrescu <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> Le 05/10/2017 à 17:33, Abdussalam Baryun a écrit :
> [...]
>
>>     [AB]   Please delete those documents which are not ietf-wg-adopted
>>>     or maybe have many errors (there are errors in some RFCs but they
>>>     are very few because many discussions and reviews). I think we
>>>     adopted this document and we need to delete documents that are not
>>>     even adopted. However, 2464 is not for wireless communications.
>>>
>>
>>
>>     Please do not delete the references.  We welcome references to other
>>     documents, whether or not they are IETF documents.
>>
>>
>> Yes we may welcome when needed, but I think the doc is referencing as a
>> survey but please note this is not a survey/informational doc.
>>
>
> I am still not convinced about removing that.  That survey/informational
> is looking at joining with the problem statement drafts.  At that point it
> would make sense to refer to them, unless you disagree.
>

any way that was my opinion to remove any extra and not needed info and non
adopted drafts. I respect your opinion. However, we need to focus our draft
to its objective with less as possible literature overview.

>
> in -09 we say:
>
>> In the published literature, many documents describe aspects and
>> problems related to running IPv6 over 802.11-OCB:
>> [I-D.ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-survey].
>>
>
> Additionally,
>
> There are a three other individual submission documents that we refer to.
> I believe they are necessary at this time.
>
> draft-perkins-intarea-multicast-ieee802: a good starting point for WiFi
> problems on multicast.  If no other reference, then I keep I.
>

I agree its ok,

>
> draft-petrescu-its-scenarios-reqs: it's because we need to tell in this
> draft what kinds of scenarios we look at (the vehicular scenarios).  If
> there is some other RFC or draft that describes the scenarios then I can
> put that instead.
>
ok

>
> draft-hinden-6man-rfc2464bis: it's because it's the only little try to
> update rfc2464 at this time.  If it gets adopted in 6man then it will be
> fine.
>
> This I disagree to include because not necessary,