[Raw] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-raw-ldacs-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-raw-ldacs-10: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-raw-ldacs/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. It is also important for the
IETF to welcome new work. The content is really interesting to read (especially
for a private pilot!); albeit, it appears more like a roadmap / plan to use
IETF protocols for aviation rather than being focused only on LDACS.

Please find below some blocking DISCUSS points, some non-blocking COMMENT
points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education),
and some nits.

I also support Alvaro Retana's DISCUSS on using the right publication stream,
which should have been ISE in this case as often done for documents describing
specifications done outside the IETF. I notice that this document as an
"unknown" status for the consensus boilerplate and setting it to "No" (if
possible) would probably address Alvaro's concern.

Special thanks to:

- Pascal Thubert for the shepherd's write-up including the WG consensus and the
intended status.

- Carlos Bernardos for his INT directorate review at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/oRK9fXWx48Xj6VhdJMMarEPFB3c/
which also raises the same issue as Alvaro but also has other points deserving
a reply

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a
DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics:

## Section 4

Raising a DISCUSS just to get a discussion with authors, RAW WG, ICAO
representatives, and the community:
  "There is currently no "IPv6 over LDACS" specification
   publicly available; however, SESAR2020 has started the testing of
   IPv6-based LDACS testbeds."
Is the plan to have this "IPv6 over LDACS" be specified in an IETF WG (e.g.,
intarea) ? Or will ICAO work alone on this specification (and perhaps not using
the experience of the IETF community)?

## Section 5.2.1

Let me share Carlos' point, which I second (it would be enough to state the
intention about MIPv6 to address it):

- "Technically the FCI multilink concept will be realized by multi-homed mobile
IPv6 networks in the aircraft." --> how is Mobile IPv6 going to be used and
which specific protocol of the Mobile IPv6 family? just MIPv6 and/or PMIPv6?
implications on mobility and RAW are unclear at this point (probably this is
for the RAW WG to evaluate, but just wanted to point it out).


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# COMMENTS

## Section 1

As Erik Kline, please use RFC 8200 as a reference to IPv6.

The last two paragraphs are more a liaison statement of the ICAO than an
integral part of an IETF stream document.

## Section 2

It is not really a terminology section but rather an acronym list. I.e.,
suggest renaming this section ?

## Section 5.2.5

Some explanations on how positioning can be done in the absence of GNSS would
be welcome.

## Section 8.2

Suggest to also add the well-known SNMP & NETCONF as the acronyms are more
often known than their expansions.

## Section 9.2

Should the section title include the word "security" ?

## Section 9.3

"Currently" won't age well ;-) Suggest to write "Work in 2022 includes..."

## Section 9.5.2

What is "ICAO unique address of an aircraft" ? Is it a layer-2 address ?

# NITS

## Section 1
s/area of the world, that suffers/area of the world that suffers/ ?
s/east- and west- cost of the US/East and West Coast of the USA/ ?

and many other typos... Strongly suggest using a tool to improve the grammar /
spelling