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

["Templin (US), Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Doesn’t work, Dirk. Several months ago, Paul took my edits and the document looked
good. Then, someone came in later without my knowing about it and said “take out
all of the AERO/OMNI stuff”, and no one told me about it. This is no longer a balanced
document; this is a document that embraces a particular solution alternative while
ignoring another.

You and I had a testy exchange earlier; if your message is a continuation of that
exchange I can tell you that I do not appreciate it.

Fred

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 7:46 AM
To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] AW: [ipwave] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-26.txt


EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.




Dear Fred, Paul, Russ and all,
From my point of view - only loosely following this discussion - I do agree that Paul has achieved a good balance between different protocols included/mentioned. Thanks for that!

Just a small typo: on page 3 it should also read
‘Automatic Extended Route Optimization (AERO)’ instead of ‘Asymmetric Extended Route Optimization (AERO)’
And maybe one could add on p. 14 the sentence
‘Refer to Appendix A for the description how OMNI can support use of multiple radio technologies in V2X’.

Would that help? What do you think?
Thanks
Best regards
Dirk


Von: its <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Im Auftrag von Templin (US), Fred L
Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. Februar 2022 15:35
An: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Russ Housley <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Betreff: Re: [ipwave] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-26.txt

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.

Fred

From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 7:50 PM
To: Russ Housley <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
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.

Fred,
I hope you can understand my position as the editor.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul


On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 5:26 AM Russ Housley <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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?

Russ


> On Feb 21, 2022, at 2:56 PM, Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Templin (US), Fred L
>> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 7:28 AM
>> To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> 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 [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 9:00 PM
>>> To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> 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:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking/
>>>
>>> There is also an htmlized version available at:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-26
>>>
>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-26
>>>
>>>
>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> its mailing list
>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> its mailing list
>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its