IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Wed, 17 July 2019 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
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 6A7CA120724; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 07:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 7codGXUEP2lL; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 07:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (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 433951206DC; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 07:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 200116b82c292800c8cfb4743a3e4aca.dip.versatel-1u1.de ([2001:16b8:2c29:2800:c8cf:b474:3a3e:4aca]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1hnl6c-0003cz-0m; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 16:40:30 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <F6F55C32-314C-4747-BD5E-1D0659D9084E@vigilsec.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 16:40:29 +0200
Cc: Nabil Benamar <n.benamar@est.umi.ac.ma>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, its <its@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EBA62BA9-B224-4B51-8C14-368A7E7B095C@kuehlewind.net>
References: <156269059867.15866.17764812378863873209.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAD8vqFdPYvDOq2hELAyWiVw29214K7oBi7sH+TBzWTQmzQ33og@mail.gmail.com> <4FA280F6-FD9F-4DBA-991B-D0A3033FB124@kuehlewind.net> <CAD8vqFcMSQoGp3FavcR14a9B0k9s61+hy6urruXnGkdT-W0OYA@mail.gmail.com> <61138CEA-2D49-48C3-846E-D93DB17DDB27@kuehlewind.net> <CAP6QOWRx_tKDOZ65kykNt6vb0Fdj63+Z+RusLBq_hoknAv94=Q@mail.gmail.com> <2E61E2A9-10C4-4C7B-B738-EFC450D96EBF@vigilsec.com> <B5DC7859-FDD4-4EF9-82A6-3DE09E068C77@kuehlewind.net> <0D52B176-89B5-4322-93B9-2F6ABA6EFFFA@vigilsec.com> <F6F55C32-314C-4747-BD5E-1D0659D9084E@vigilsec.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1563374434;c7941208;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1hnl6c-0003cz-0m
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/miQ51qNlx5amu9tvSflXgdkLejI>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-49: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 14:40:44 -0000

That is okay for me as well. As actually can judge the references here, so I’ll trust in your expertise. Thanks!


> On 17. Jul 2019, at 16:35, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Mirja:
> 
> Rick Roy suggested that the  [IEEE-1609.2] reference was probably not the best one.  I suggest:
> 
> 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 SHOULD use a
> 'priority' value of 1 (QoS with a 'Background' user priority), reserving
> higher priority values for safety-critical and time-sensitive
> traffic, including the ones listed in [ETSI-sec-archi].
> 
> Russ
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email