Re: [ipwave] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-49: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>]

Hi Russ,

This would also be good and address my discuss. However, IP is not really a specific service and I could well imagine that in future there could also be a more critical service that is implemented over IP (for whatever reason). To leave this as generic as possible, which I think a mapping document should be, I would recommend to us SHOULD or no normative language at all.

Mirja



> On 11. Jul 2019, at 17:51, Russ Housley <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I suggest that the MUST statement remain, but that a bit of rationale be provided:
> 
>    The IPv6 packet transmitted on 802.11-OCB are immediately preceded by
>    a Logical Link Control (LLC) header and an 802.11 header.  In the LLC
>    header, and in accordance with the EtherType Protocol Discrimination
>    (EPD, see Appendix D), the value of the Type field MUST be set to
>    0x86DD (IPv6).  The mapping to the 802.11 data service MUST use a
>    'priority' value of 1 (QoS with a 'Background' user priority), reserving
>    higher priority values for safety-critical and time-sensitive
>    traffic [IEEE-1609.2].   
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
>> On Jul 10, 2019, at 7:40 PM, John Kenney <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi All:
>> 
>> I have no desire to re-litigate the QoS issue. However, it's important to remember that IP-over-OCB will typically share public regulated spectrum with non-IP safety-of-life communications. In the US, FCC regulations require that such safety communications have access priority over other communications [47 CFR § 90.377(d)] .  I would be cautious about removing the current language unless you are convinced that doing so will not adversely affect non-IP safety communications.
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> John
>> 
>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 6:18 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Thanks. Removing this text entirely is a good option.
>> 
>> Mirja
>> 
>> 
>> > On 10. Jul 2019, at 13:39, Nabil Benamar <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > 
>> > Hi Mirja,
>> > 
>> > Actually, the text was written some time ago and different views were shared in the group. I think we need to remove this text to avoid confusion.
>> > 
>> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 8:44 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > Hi Nabil,
>> > 
>> > I think my point was slightly different. Dorothy mainly advised you _how_ to specify the priority. However my question is rather _if_ that is needed and if it is really appropriate to use a MUST here. Can you further explain why that is seen as a mandatory requirement?
>> > 
>> > Mirja
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > > On 9. Jul 2019, at 23:29, Nabil Benamar <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > > 
>> > > Hi Mirja,
>> > > 
>> > > Thank you for your review and comments.
>> > > 
>> > > You raised a very important point that was discussed extensively on the ML and then we asked the IEEE 802.11 members (thanks to Dorothy Stanly) to provide us with a review to help us clarify this point.
>> > > 
>> > > Here is what we got from them:
>> > > 
>> > > .  Suggest to simply state that the data is transmitted with “User Priority” of Background (numerically 1 or 2), and leave the internal details of how this is accomplished to the 802.11 specification.
>> > > 
>> > > User Priority is typically described as a simple integer (not a binary value), and the mapping of this User Priority to TID header value is another 802.11 detail, best left to the 802.11 specification.  For example: in the 802.11 specification the TID field is specified to be 4 bits in the header.  The use of these 4 bits to carry the User Priority information is an internal specification of 802.11 and potentially subject to change.. 
>> > > 
>> > > Suggest using terminology from the MAC SAP in IEEE Std 802.11-2016 Clause 5.2.  This clause intentionally abstracts the exact details of 802..11’s internal operation, while describing specifically the behavior required by the user.  For example, the following text:
>> > > 
>> > > “In the 802.11 header, the value of the Subtype sub-field in the Frame Control field MUST be set to 8 (i.e. 'QoS Data'); the value of the Traffic Identifier (TID) sub-field of the QoS Control field of the 802.11 header MUST be set to binary 001 (i.e.  User Priority 'Background', QoS Access Category 'AC_BK').” 
>> > > 
>> > > could be replaced by:
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > “The mapping to the 802.11 data service MUST use a ‘priority’ value of 1, which specifies the use of QoS with a “Background” user priority.” 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > Thanks again.
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 5:43 PM Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
>> > > draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-49: Discuss
>> > > 
>> > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> > > introductory paragraph, however.)
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb/
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > DISCUSS:
>> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > 
>> > > One point on this sentence, which I believe was also commented in the TSV-ART
>> > > review (Thanks Jörg!):
>> > > 
>> > > sec 4.2: "The mapping to the 802.11 data service MUST use a
>> > >    'priority' value of 1, which specifies the use of QoS with a
>> > >    'Background' user priority."
>> > > I don't think this should be a MUST requirement. I assume the assumption here
>> > > is that IP traffic is always some "random" data that is less important than
>> > > other V2V communication. However, this is a generic mapping document and should
>> > > therefore probably not make such an assumption (or at least it would need to be
>> > > spelled out).
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > COMMENT:
>> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > 
>> > > One editorial high level comment: I seams like all text that was somehow deemed
>> > > as out fo scope for the main body of this document got stuffed into the
>> > > appendix. Please consider removing what is really not needed in this document
>> > > as these pages also take review and RFC Editor time, especially as they seem to
>> > > have received less review and therefore have more nits.
>> > > 
>> > > nit: sec 4.5.2 s/in OCB mode.A  A future improvement/in OCB mode. A future
>> > > improvement/
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > -- 
>> > > 
>> > > Best Regards
>> > > 
>> > > Nabil Benamar
>> > > Associate Professor
>> > > Department of Computer Sciences
>> > > School of Technology
>> > > Moulay Ismail University 
>> > > Meknes. Morocco
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > -- 
>> > 
>> > Best Regards
>> > 
>> > Nabil Benamar
>> > Associate Professor
>> > Department of Computer Sciences
>> > School of Technology
>> > Moulay Ismail University 
>> > Meknes. Morocco
>> > 
>> > 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> its mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> John Kenney
>> Director and Sr. Principal Researcher
>> Toyota InfoTech Labs
>> 465 Bernardo Avenue
>> Mountain View, CA 94043
>> Tel: [phone]. Mobile: [phone]
>