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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

>> All we need is a simple statement in the spec which puts some scope
>> limits, w.r.t the missing ND pieces and issues. 

Yes, that is clearly essential, as well as an associated health
warning that implementers must not rush ahead because of the risk
of non-interoperability. 

Regards
   Brian

On 14-Apr-19 13:58, NABIL BENAMAR wrote:
> +1 Sri
> 
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019, 00:06 Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     I understand your point Brian, but IMO there are enough reasons not to
>     delay this work.
> 
>     There are many use-cases/applications where there is a stable topology of
>     RSU¹s and OBU¹s. The regulations around 5.9 Ghz (DSRC) band allows the
>     channel use for non-priority/non-traffic safety related applications. For
>     example, a vehicle in a gas station can receive a coupon from the
>     802.11-OCB radio (AP/RSU) in the gas station. There, its a stable topology
>     that classic ND is designed for. In this operating mode, its perfectly
>     reasonable to use classic ND and it works. The authors have shown enough
>     lab data on the same.
> 
>     Ideally, I agree with you that it makes lot more sense to publish both the
>     specs at the same time. But, for what ever reasons the WG went on this
>     path. Authors have spent incredible amount of efforts in getting the draft
>     this far and we cannot ignore that. You can see the efforts from the
>     version number; when did we last see a draft version -037?
> 
>     We also need to distill the recent ND discussions and filter out the
>     threads that are clearly motivated to insert a ND protocol that is
>     designed for a totally different operating environment. An argument that a
>     protocol designed for low-power environments is the solution for vehicular
>     environments requires some serious vetting. Looking at the
>     characteristics, always-sleeping, occasional internet connectivity,
>     low-power, no memory, no processing power, no mobility ..etc, meeting
>     vehicular requirements is some thing most people in the WG do not get it.
> 
>     Bottom line, IMO, we should move this forward and publish the document.
>     All we need is a simple statement in the spec which puts some scope
>     limits, w.r.t the missing ND pieces and issues. There are other proposals
>     in the WG that will address the gaps and bring closure to the work.
> 
>     Sri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     On 4/12/19, 1:28 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[e-mail] <mailto:[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.
>     >
>     >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 would leave developers absolutely unable to write useful
>     >code, and might easily lead to incompatible implementations. Since
>     >we'd presumably like Fords to be able to communicate with Peugeots,
>     >that seems like a bad idea.
>     >
>     >Regards
>     >   Brian
>