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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

I agree with you Sri.
You raised these issues much earlier, even prior to WG formation.

WE discussed back and forth about this since long.  WE found a way 
forward each time: separate ND into another work.

Alex

Le 12/04/2019 à 16:59, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) a écrit :
> 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.
> 
> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/9NvUfRigGd4Klu0Q2Ee-63ziATw
> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/VcrwNSvNJVIZNcRLNjDY0iSw3CA
> 
> Sri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: its <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf 
> of Sri Gundavelli <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Friday, April 12, 2019 at 7:38 AM
> To: Nabil Benamar <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, 
> "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, 
> Nabil Benamar <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, 
> "[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>" 
> <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Alexandre 
> Petrescu <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Re: [ipwave] Intdir early review of 
> draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34
> 
> I am not following these discussions.  From my point of view, many of 
> the discussions are totally out of scope for this document.
> 
> Some one needs to moderate these discussions.
> 
> Sri
> 
> 
> 
> From: its <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf 
> of Nabil Benamar <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Friday, April 12, 2019 at 7:34 AM
> To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, 
> Nabil Benamar <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, 
> "[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>" 
> <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Alexandre 
> Petrescu <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Re: [ipwave] Intdir early review of 
> draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34
> 
> Hello Pascal,
> 
> I seconded Akex and would like to suggest you to add the missing text in 
> the draft.
> 
> Best regards
> Nabil
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019, 14:01 Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hello Nabil.____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     You will get a number of IESG reviews as part of the submission
>     process, one per area. This is just a beginning…____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Cheers,____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Pascal____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     *From:* NABIL BENAMAR <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *Sent:* lundi 8 avril 2019 17:53
>     *To:* Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *Cc:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>     [e-mail]
>     <mailto:draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@ietf..org>
>     *Subject:* Re: Intdir early review of
>     draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Yes definitely Alex....____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     There have been many reviews until now. This should be a late or
>     final review.____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     On Mon, Apr 8, 2019, 10:01 Alexandre Petrescu
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     wrote:____
> 
>         As a note: please improve the title of this.____
> 
>         It is not an early review.____
> 
>         It is a late review.____
> 
>         There have been several reviews of this document until here, and
>         two shepherd reviews.____
> 
>         Alex____
> 
>         Le 04/03/2019 à 12:24, Pascal Thubert a écrit :____
> 
>             Reviewer: Pascal Thubert____
> 
>             Review result: Not Ready____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             Reviewer: Pascal Thubert____
> 
>             Review result: Not ready. Need to clarify IEEE relationship, IOW which SDO____
> 
>             defines the use of L2 fields, what this spec enforces vs. recognizes as being____
> 
>             used that way based on IEEE work. The use of IPv6 ND requires a lot more____
> 
>             thoughts, recommendation to use 6LoWPAN ND. The definition of a subnet is____
> 
>             unclear. It seems that RSUs would have prefixes but that is not discussed.____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             I am an assigned INT and IOT directorates reviewer for <____
> 
>             draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34 >. These comments were written____
> 
>             primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and____
> 
>             shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments____
> 
>             from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last____
> 
>             Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate,____
> 
>             seehttps://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             Majors issues____
> 
>             -----------------____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             “____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             o  Exceptions due to different operation of IPv6 network layer on____
> 
>                    802.11 than on Ethernet.____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             “____
> 
>             Is this doc scoped to OCB or 802.11 in general? Is there an expectation that an____
> 
>             implementer of IPv6 over Wi-Fi refers to this doc? Spelled as above, it seems____
> 
>             that you are defining the LLC. Figure 1 shows the proposed adaptation layer as____
> 
>             IEEE LLC work. Who defines those fields, IETF or IEEE, or mixed? Who defines____
> 
>             their use? If this spec defines a new LLC header (vs. how to use an IEEE field)____
> 
>               then it should be very clear, and the newly defined fields should be isolated____
> 
>             from IEEE fields.____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             "____
> 
>                 The IPv6 packet transmitted on 802.11-OCB MUST be immediately____
> 
>                 preceded by a Logical Link Control (LLC) header and an 802.11 header.____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             "____
> 
>             Is there anything new or specific to OCB vs. classical 802.11 operations?____
> 
>             If/when this is echoing the IEEE specs then this text should not use uppercase____
> 
>             but say something like: 'Per IEEE Std 802.11, the IPv6 packet transmitted on____
> 
>             802.11-OCB is immediately  preceded by a Logical Link Control (LLC) header and____
> 
>             an 802.11 header ...'____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             different things? Why define both?____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             "   An 'adaptation' layer is inserted between a MAC layer and the____
> 
>                 Networking layer.  This is used to transform some parameters between____
> 
>                 their form expected by the IP stack and the form provided by the MAC____
> 
>                 layer.____
> 
>             "____
> 
>             Is this different from what an AP does when it bridges Wi-Fi to Ethernet? Is____
> 
>             this IETF business?____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             "____
> 
>                 The Receiver and Transmitter Address fields in the 802.11 header MUST____
> 
>                 contain the same values as the Destination and the Source Address____
> 
>                 fields in the Ethernet II Header, respectively.____
> 
>             "____
> 
>             Same,  this is IEEE game isn't it?____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             "____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             Solutions for these problems SHOULD____
> 
>                 consider the OCB mode of operation.____
> 
>             "____
> 
>             This is not specific enough to be actionable. I suggest to remove this sentence.____
> 
>             It would be of interest for the people defining those solutions to understand____
> 
>             the specific needs of OCB vs. Wi Fi, but I do not see text about that.____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             "____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             The method of forming IIDs____
> 
>                 described in section 4 of [RFC2464] MAY be used during transition____
> 
>                 time.____
> 
>             "____
> 
>             Contradicts section 4.3 that says____
> 
>             "____
> 
>             Among these types of____
> 
>                 addresses only the IPv6 link-local addresses MAY be formed using an____
> 
>                 EUI-64 identifier.____
> 
>             "____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             "____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             This____
> 
>                 subnet MUST use at least the link-local prefix fe80::/10 and the____
> 
>                 interfaces MUST be assigned IPv6 addresses of type link-local.____
> 
>             "____
> 
>             If this is conforming IPv6 then the MUST is not needed.____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             "____
> 
>                 A subnet is formed by the external 802.11-OCB interfaces of vehicles____
> 
>                 that are in close range (not by their in-vehicle interfaces).____
> 
>             "____
> 
>             Is the definition transitive? Do we really get a subnet?____
> 
>               A is close to  B who is close to C .... to Z, makes Paris one subnet! Are you____
> 
>               talking about a link, rather?____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             "____
> 
>                 The Neighbor Discovery protocol (ND) [RFC4861] MUST be used over____
> 
>                 802.11-OCB links.____
> 
>             "____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             IPv6 ND is not suited for a non-broadcast network. How does DAD work?____
> 
>             Maybe you could consider RFC 6775 / RFC 8505 instead.____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             "____
> 
>             In the moment the MAC address is changed____
> 
>                 on an 802.11-OCB interface all the Interface Identifiers of IPv6____
> 
>                 addresses assigned to that interface MUST change.____
> 
>             "____
> 
>             Why is that? This is unexpected, and hopefully wrong.____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             Minor issues____
> 
>             ---------------____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             "   OCB (outside the context of a basic service set - BSS): A mode of____
> 
>                 operation in which a STA is not a member of a BSS and does not____
> 
>                 utilize IEEE Std 802.11 authentication, association, or data____
> 
>                 confidentiality.____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>                 802.11-OCB: mode specified in IEEE Std 802.11-2016 when the MIB____
> 
>                 attribute dot11OCBActivited is true.  Note: compliance with standards____
> 
>                 and regulations set in different countries when using the 5.9GHz____
> 
>                 frequency band is required.____
> 
>             "____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             Are these 2 different things?____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             "____
> 
>             Among these types of____
> 
>               addresses only the IPv6 link-local addresses MAY be formed using an____
> 
>                EUI-64 identifier.____
> 
>             "____
> 
>             This text should not be in a LL specific section since it deals with the other____
> 
>             addresses. Maybe rename the section to "addressing" or something?____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             "____
> 
>                 For privacy, the link-local address MAY be formed according to the____
> 
>                 mechanisms described in Section 5.2.____
> 
>             "____
> 
>             The MAY is not helpful. I suggest to remove the sentence that does not bring____
> 
>             value vs. 5.2____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             Could you make sections 4.3 and 4.5 contiguous?____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             "____
> 
>             If semantically____
> 
>                 opaque Interface Identifiers are needed, a potential method for____
> 
>                 generating semantically opaque Interface Identifiers with IPv6____
> 
>                 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is given in [RFC7217]...____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>                 Semantically opaque Interface Identifiers, instead of meaningful____
> 
>                 Interface Identifiers derived from a valid and meaningful MAC address____
> 
>                 ([RFC2464], section 4), MAY be needed in order to avoid certain____
> 
>                 privacy risks.____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             ...____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>                 In order to avoid these risks, opaque Interface Identifiers MAY be____
> 
>                 formed according to rules described in [RFC7217].  These opaque____
> 
>                 Interface Identifiers are formed starting from identifiers different____
> 
>                 than the MAC addresses, and from cryptographically strong material.____
> 
>                 Thus, privacy sensitive information is absent from Interface IDs, and____
> 
>                 it is impossible to calculate the initial value from which the____
> 
>                 Interface ID was calculated.____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             "____
> 
>             Duplicate and mis ordered text, isn't it?____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             " For this reason, an attacker may realize many____
> 
>                 attacks on privacy.____
> 
>             "____
> 
>             Do we attack privacy? Maybe say that privacy is a real concern, and maybe move____
> 
>             that text to security section?____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             "____
> 
>                 The way Interface Identifiers are used MAY involve risks to privacy,____
> 
>                 as described in Section 5.1.____
> 
>             "____
> 
>             Also duplicate____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             Nits____
> 
>             ------____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             "____
> 
>                 IP packets MUST be transmitted over 802.11-OCB media as QoS Data____
> 
>                 frames whose format is specified in IEEE Std 802.11.____
> 
>             "____
> 
>             Please add link to the reference____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             " the 802.11 hidden node"____
> 
>             Do not use 802.11 standalone (multiple occurrences).____
> 
>             => "the IEEE Std. 802.11 [ ref ] hidden node", or just "the hidden terminal".____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             BCP 14 text:____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             Suggest to use this text:____
> 
>             “____
> 
>                 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",____
> 
>                 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and____
> 
>                 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in____
> 
>                 https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14  https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14____
> 
>                 [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they____
> 
>                 appear in all capitals, as shown here.____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             “____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             All the best____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             Pascal____
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             __  __
> 
>             __  __
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     its mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>