IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 WRA suggestion removal

William Whyte <wwhyte@securityinnovation.com> Fri, 10 February 2017 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <wwhyte@securityinnovation.com>
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 878E0129A27 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:32:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=securityinnovation.com
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 0FyhebsV8pXV for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:32:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x22e.google.com (mail-io0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22e]) (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 420E7129A26 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:32:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id j18so53681505ioe.2 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:32:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=securityinnovation.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vzBeO6j04ENZC8Cf1zit53gZVjO4QBIqB9IS75ILXI0=; b=abJ/XzSrASAKATpGFGXHyQ3r3uf97/vc/LiWFOB6ux0XqiUTBmCOL6rShlUcBPej3b m7i0W2jQfTtIwENJFJWO/AhfSLDvAaSXp3XbzaVea8aQPGwKTwO40S8IHgk/QQ2GpfvR AS+goPIvoi7sTrHT/529cABIq+ITHU+jk84KU=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vzBeO6j04ENZC8Cf1zit53gZVjO4QBIqB9IS75ILXI0=; b=oJH4Adxw+iK3ahjdsPbaLjMwBkvvelMykQ7ri7Hk/G5nctlLeyjuSHLZQIdpfNz5t/ a2eJuQI/goy1Q4WSXR8BqVEz6R1tNng9PZv3nWYCbWnsRt4CKxhWp+D3z7wwqS6LGA+j xzW1KsoZs1Ac6NAzB+sOskk53SYqoAOpor4+U1y6cxGlJKFlCfBQwyxSw7qY/U2wXsfl z0HU10JwNpKGh+sFlNETuQnkHnQhJfMkpp3sLJ0hvusWgET1orAwt+EVGdR5kIbbxrLP 0XGoGmjnmg6ZSikhgBIJjxTZj0C6hQ0nhF44ZEZ8DL2ZP4QEWlCBREAtvKTpBamJivBZ 8jzA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kCHxhJl9Xp0lkdGGkvJSSzd3KdVoKECTARppTzHR/zGWMPLUbMHoZyG1mCvozl64ih0K5r5P9YWFj7N/jk
X-Received: by 10.107.149.18 with SMTP id x18mr8952164iod.167.1486744360551; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:32:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.176.209 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:32:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <2d898a92-e587-8801-4c8a-ef6fb485d785@cea.fr>
References: <148052970170.9607.12043916621198119260.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <2d898a92-e587-8801-4c8a-ef6fb485d785@cea.fr>
From: William Whyte <wwhyte@securityinnovation.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:32:39 -0800
Message-ID: <CACz1E9rudxvVcit8eJ9maGE9RwpOQ8vZh5zWgqxQRJ3s0ZP30A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/uwKs0gDqClrrMdUpZssmqzDgNQQ>
Cc: "its@ietf.org" <its@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 WRA suggestion removal
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: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 16:32:42 -0000

Why wouldn't this be acceptable? It's a reference to a published
standard, it should be okay.

Cheers,

William

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
<alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00
> WRA suggestion removal
>
> Hello IPWAVErs,
>
> We received a warning about the draft suggesting the use of WRA (WAVE
> Router Advertisement - an IEEE message termed like, but different than,
> the IP Router Advertisement).  It is said that this suggestion may not
> be acceptable by IEEE, and as such may be out of scope in this I-D.
>
> I will remove this old text in the Handovers section.
>
> old:
>>
>> 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].
>
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> its@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email