Re: [ipwave] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-20.txt> (IPv6 Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE): Problem Statement and Use Cases) to Informational RFC

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Tue, 15 June 2021 19:12 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C093A3A49; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OznvSNkJ7egV; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42b.google.com (mail-wr1-x42b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D6273A3A47; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id y7so19460213wrh.7; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=zDFf+UYYX1DKmo8wD6aXm+0MwwOkYCZMxjRv9czgMhs=; b=exycBVBTDSejHlacAIOgCxZTx1y5ojEo3X5WVdqrsPgQvS47fnCip3hcULG6mi+lgx DWiFzUS7Igg32Ii2qok1bILVlwuVhtZ3chCpAQozTu/jLY1L2O0H7r8ERHO/i3tAPlWV il+fLSIZfaxCpoNqPJ/lHA94b8SNU5LpzUxLf3tHy8RhDfGUPk606iz80ct0WlZzMuZG 9Y7KZW47SodRWxvi0i3qDNdASTH5xwJAGQzhmeneI+XmOgW+R01cFVtq1ZpNq2zMWCSu PCVUKJ4sVOU/ylBXHCtYLYmIHQI29qtVbQmqwCkaPTWJfoZFuB42ytE3/7rZmmsndr0b 33nw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=zDFf+UYYX1DKmo8wD6aXm+0MwwOkYCZMxjRv9czgMhs=; b=lSxvtP0xDzqdn+m3xVdlXjH0xDWpoLXZ9w7bhEyzUNP0R45BpWHGV1cOXV82tuX+2A jeJqc2ix1+K608KTYWZDnqsLMxyi7wCIXeTlUF+hVBNV9jO632jIRIN60k1B4KrggNbS S1BVpB5SSRyr30/uBuMyHAbU3mTP1suukEhrFjL3kH3lP9KGcbc1eW7WILN5tKwMIe1l wdJcmKKeU8d1MuIX6OltlQ+bEzp9qcXE3M2ohAfbe2EuZ5QFBbYnl8gqIclO92cSiQrV GN8bqSNQf/HFMk84kW0gfdfC8XgYIxCFVENVsfzFaS6fhna+eljYoUi4XUZxud7AHEig UsqA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533+NxJoYqqCK0z7yKwjdhMOQUawvjdIgg7ApuLNI2rCNub1YjfA idCwIidQnY3A05V22ovpQBg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwdfgzrqUthJEqw5EK697Ztu4EakAC/ig5lbXnQk/2gCyeHMNtByGXPrdKTupOw/pp0w6t6/g==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:d1e8:: with SMTP id g8mr695768wrd.309.1623784365028; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.199] (c-24-5-53-184.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.5.53.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c12sm22706017wrr.90.2021.06.15.12.12.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <16616F2C-5D81-4A43-8FB6-35195995CF67@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B10F36E2-ED0E-409A-8573-07B78AE3F457"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:12:39 -0700
In-Reply-To: <f9479d80-925d-6c07-a833-45508596a0b6@gmail.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>, last-call@ietf.org, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>, its@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking@ietf.org, Carlos Bernardos <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>, IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>, ipwave-chairs@ietf.org
To: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <162367936036.30618.11701281285252724314@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAMGpriUzZj63b_0HW_RamVyqCmrFsKTBK2AgTCftYEyc8iwT0g@mail.gmail.com> <f9479d80-925d-6c07-a833-45508596a0b6@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/a-MQh1FpanprD9xwrNTRtqO71fU>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:09:03 -0700
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-20.txt> (IPv6 Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE): Problem Statement and Use Cases) to Informational RFC
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPWAVE - IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG at IETF <its.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/its/>
List-Post: <mailto:its@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 19:12:53 -0000

+1

I was going to write something similar to what Brian wrote.   This document says it is a problem statement, but then becomes a solution document.   Might be better to cut it down to only the problem statement part.

I also noted as Brian points out that the solution part appears to be dependent on OMNI given the “must” language, but OMNI is an informational reference.   This seems like a disconnect.

Bob


> On Jun 14, 2021, at 8:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the heads-up, Erik.
> 
> This text at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-20#page-9
> 
>>   Therefore, the existing IPv6 protocol can be
>>   augmented through the addition of an Overlay Multilink Network (OMNI)
>>   Interface [OMNI] and/or protocol changes in order to support both
>>   wireless single-hop/multihop V2V communications and multiple radio
>>   technologies in vehicular networks.
> 
> is of concern regardless of the mention of OMNI. Does it mean "can be" or "needs to be"? This paragraph seems like a very short summary of a big problem area. At the end of page 13 there is some related discussion, which mentions RPL as part of the solution (good choice, IMHO) but again seems to depend on OMNI. I don't think the fix of simply removing references to OMNI works, because it would leave a gap. In an informational document, that is not a formal problem but as far as this draft describes architecture, I don't think that big a gap is reasonable. "OMNI" is mentioned more than 20 times in the document. There are also several references to AERO, which is strongly associated with OMNI.
> 
> At this point I became confused about the purpose of the document. The Abstract says
> 
>>   This document discusses the problem statement and use cases of
>>   IPv6-based vehicular networking
> 
> In fact, most of section 4 seems to be a draft architecture of a solution.
> 
>> 5.  Problem Statement
>> 
>>   In order to specify protocols using the architecture mentioned in
>>   Section 4.1, IPv6 core protocols have to be adapted to overcome
>>   certain challenging aspects of vehicular networking.
> 
> That's a big leap. But the rest of section 5 seems to get back to solution design.
> 
> So I am left puzzled about what would happen next if this draft becomes an RFC. Do the authors expect 6man to work on the issues they've raised? I'm not sure they match 6man's limited charter ("not chartered to develop major changes or additions
> to the IPv6 specifications").
> 
> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter
> 
> On 15-Jun-21 13:07, Erik Kline wrote:
>> +6man, since there are many statements about IPv6 work in this document.
>> 
>> One thing of note: in the time after this document was WGLC'd, 6man
>> held an adoption call on OMNI that did not result in adoption [OMNI].
>> There are at two places where this text appears:
>> 
>>   "The existing IPv6 protocol must be augmented through the addition of
>>   an OMNI interface..."
>> 
>> These statements should probably be revised (or removed).
>> 
>> -Erik
>> 
>> [OMNI] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/s1S49EYPThX34Gowu4ExPgFb32k/
>> 
>> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 7:02 AM The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The IESG has received a request from the IP Wireless Access in Vehicular
>>> Environments WG (ipwave) to consider the following document: - 'IPv6 Wireless
>>> Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE): Problem
>>>   Statement and Use Cases'
>>>  <draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-20.txt> as Informational RFC
>>> 
>>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
>>> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>>> last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2021-06-28. Exceptionally, comments may
>>> be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
>>> of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>> 
>>> 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 file can be obtained via
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------