Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 802.21 for IP handovers

Jérôme Härri <jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr> Mon, 13 February 2017 10:15 UTC

Return-Path: <jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr>
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 B43B9129495 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 02:15:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 yDspySH5YisP for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 02:15:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.eurecom.fr (smtp3.eurecom.fr [193.55.113.213]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477341293DF for <its@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 02:15:27 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,156,1484002800"; d="scan'208";a="5767185"
Received: from monza.eurecom.fr ([192.168.106.15]) by drago2i.eurecom.fr with ESMTP; 13 Feb 2017 11:15:26 +0100
Received: from xerus29 (xerus29.eurecom.fr [172.17.31.38]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by monza.eurecom.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0AADD143C; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:15:26 +0100 (CET)
From: Jérôme Härri <jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr>
To: 'Alexandre Petrescu' <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, its@ietf.org
References: <148052970170.9607.12043916621198119260.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <e14a985e-ae65-cc59-c431-47fed128c3a8@cea.fr>
In-Reply-To: <e14a985e-ae65-cc59-c431-47fed128c3a8@cea.fr>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:15:25 +0100
Organization: EURECOM
Message-ID: <007401d285e2$18183b30$4848b190$@eurecom.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQJOjypQjcVLCnmBW2ydKpCtKDvNtwGP07VnoGIkwAA=
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/duzma3xMnLWi7j2LMFlEiXS0sBs>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 802.21 for IP handovers
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 10:15:29 -0000

Hello Alex,

I am not sure to fully understand the objective of this piece of text
anymore. I follow some other comments raising concerns on mentioning any
IEEE 1609-related message, as it would imply that our stack would be able to
decode them..which is far from being clear at this time. It is indeed also
an IEEE standard, but it is not the same 'community' and not the same stack
level.

I think we are being too specific in a field of large unknown. We should
remain more pragmatic and adopt one of the following two strategy:
1) a full specification of our claim: if we claim that something can be done
with one specific message and if it is in the scope of the document, then
explicitly mention it. This would typically be the case if we want to
explain how to get RSSI from IPv6 RA or any other related IPv6 message.
2) just mention generalities, without any specifics: e.g. this text could be
simplified as follows: "(...) in case of absence of L3 signaling, L2
signaling MAY be used to estimate the channel or link quality. " (whatever
L2 means).

Best regards,

Jérôme


-----Original Message-----
From: its [mailto:its-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
Sent: Sunday 12 February 2017 19:06
To: its@ietf.org
Subject: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 802.21 for IP
handovers

draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00
802.21 for IP handovers

Hello IPWAVErs,

José Santa Lozano commented that their implementation can rely on 802.21
(instead of WSA-with-WRA-field or RA) to realize IP handovers in 802.11-OCB.

The old text is this:
> One such message may be the 802.11p’s Time Advertisement, or higher 
> layer messages such as the "Basic Safety Message" (in the US) or the 
> "Cooperative Awareness Message " (in the EU), that are usually sent 
> several times per second. Another alternative replacement for the
> IPv6 Router Advertisement may be the message ’WAVE Routing 
> Advertisement’ (WRA), which is part of the WAVE Service Advertisement 
> and which may contain optionally the transmitter location; this 
> message is described in section 8.2.5 of [ieeep1609.3-D9-2010].

New, if at all:
> One such message may be the 802.11p’s Time Advertisement, or higher 
> layer messages such as the "Basic Safety Message" (in the US) or the 
> "Cooperative Awareness Message " (in the EU), that are usually sent 
> several times per second. Another alternative replacement for the
> IPv6 Router Advertisement may be the message ’WAVE Routing 
> Advertisement’ (WRA), which is part of the WAVE Service Advertisement 
> and which may contain optionally the transmitter location; this 
> message is described in section 8.2.5 of [ieeep1609.3-D9-2010].  Yet 
> another alternative replacement for IPv6 RA is the involvement of
> 802.21 signal levels, or additional 802.21 entities,

Alex