From nobody Mon Feb 16 07:53:34 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CF1A1A1DBC for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 07:53:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.983 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham 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 gAddJKeDJ90Z for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 07:53:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 469861A1AF8 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 07:53:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id t1GFrSBV024384 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:53:28 +0100 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 87F6D208831 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:54:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7553720880A for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:54:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id t1GFrRiA018057 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:53:27 +0100 Message-ID: <54E21277.70406@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:53:27 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "its@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: [geonet/its] LPD vs EPD for IPv6-over-80211p X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "GeoNet BoF discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:53:32 -0000 Hello, Recently I noticed discussion of EtherType Protocol Discrimination (EPD) and LLC Protocol Discrimination (LPD) for 802.3-like headers. A publicly available document is: google 802-rev-D1-7CMP.pdf "IEEE Draft Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Overview and Architecture", P802®-REV/D1.7, Octber 2013. I wonder whether the move to EPD away from LPD has a significance to the IPv6-over-80211p Internet Draft: draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-02.txt In my oppinion no. This Internet Draft describes already an adaptation layer between a MAC header like the EPD, and a MAC header like the LPD. If any change seems necessary, please comment. Alex