Subject: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-12

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 10:24:16 +0100

Hi,

(Suresh, please check a question that I make below.)

I'm the doc shepherd of this draft. I've performed a review and I have
the following comments:

- The document's intended status is "Standards Track", but the way it
is written and most of its content looks more like an Informational/BCP
kind of document. There no normative text applicable to what needs to
be done to transmit IPv6 packets over IEEE 802.11-OCB. This has been
discussed during the F2F meeting in Singapore and needs to be tackled.
In many parts of the document, it seems that the main conclusion is
that "nothing different from IPv6 over IEEE 802.11 needs to be done for
IEEE 802.11-OCB" (at least for the current scope of the doc). If that
is the case, maybe the document should be Informational and reflect
just some recommendations. If there is something else that needs to be
done, then it has to be more clearly stated (using normative text).

@Suresh, can you provide some guidance on this point?

- The abstract mentions that in order to transmit IPv6 packets on IEEE
802.11-OCB, "there is a need to define a few parameters such as the
supported Maximum Transmission Unit size on the 802.11-OCB link, the
header format preceding the IPv6 header, the Type value within it, and
others". But the MTU part of the draft does not use any normative text,
 the header format is exactly the same than for IEEE 802.11, as the
type value.

- Section 1 lists two exceptions for 802.11-OCB compared to Ethernet.
The first one is not different from regular 802.11, but for the second
one, the document only provides recommendations.

- I always thought that "WiFi" does not stand for "Wireless Fidelity".
See https://boingboing.net/2005/11/08/wifi-isnt-short-for.html

- The use of MAY (to be interpreted as in RFC2119) in the terminology
section does not seem appropriate to me. I don't think normative text
applies to whether an OBRU may be ab IP router.

- In the terminology section, the OBU term is mentioned to be defined
outside the IETF. This is fine, but we have to provide a reference. And
even with that, it would not harm to include some short definition to
provide context. The RSU term is also defined outside the IETF and
there is quite a lot of text provided (I think the relevant part is the
last sentence, the one starting with "The difference between..."). Both
terms should be handled in the same way.

- In section 3, it is mentioned that "the operating environment
(vehicular networks) brings in new perspectives" --> which are those
(that are covered/tackled by the document?

- In section 4.1, does the text mean that the MTU SHOULD/MUST be 1500
octects. If that is what is meant, this is really a normative thing
that should be written using normative text. If it is just a
recommendation, then this should be clearly written as such.

- All the text of section 4.2.1 is not normative, but more a report of
what is done today in existing implementations. Is there any different
there that is specific of 802.11-OCB?

- All subsections 4.x seem informative, not normative.

- The privacy part of section 5 is important, as it impacts the
operation of IPv6 over this type of networks, so I think this deserves
more attention.

- In section 5, "amd" --> "and".

- In section, H.1, more details about how the captures were obtained
should be provided (HW, SW, etc.).

Authors, please respond to my questions/comments and address them in a
new version of the document.

Thanks,

Carlos

---

From: François Simon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 09:52:09 -0500

My comments are within the text [Fygs.......].

Sincerely,

Francois Simon

-----Original Message-----
From: its [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Carlos Jesús Bernardos
Cano
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 4:24 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-12

Hi,

I'm the doc shepherd of this draft. I've performed a review and I have the
following comments:

- The document's intended status is "Standards Track", but the way it is
written and most of its content looks more like an Informational/BCP kind of
document. There no normative text applicable to what needs to be done to
transmit IPv6 packets over IEEE 802.11-OCB. This has been discussed during
the F2F meeting in Singapore and needs to be tackled.
In many parts of the document, it seems that the main conclusion is that
"nothing different from IPv6 over IEEE 802.11 needs to be done for IEEE
802.11-OCB" (at least for the current scope of the doc). If that is the
case, maybe the document should be Informational and reflect just some
recommendations. If there is something else that needs to be done, then it
has to be more clearly stated (using normative text).

- The abstract mentions that in order to transmit IPv6 packets on IEEE
802.11-OCB, "there is a need to define a few parameters such as the
supported Maximum Transmission Unit size on the 802.11-OCB link, the header
format preceding the IPv6 header, the Type value within it, and others". But
the MTU part of the draft does not use any normative text,  the header
format is exactly the same than for IEEE 802.11, as the type value.

- Section 1 lists two exceptions for 802.11-OCB compared to Ethernet.
The first one is not different from regular 802.11, but for the second one,
the document only provides recommendations.

- I always thought that "WiFi" does not stand for "Wireless Fidelity".
See https://boingboing.net/2005/11/08/wifi-isnt-short-for.html
[Fygs: It does stand for "Wireless Fidelity"]

- In the terminology section, the OBU term is mentioned to be defined
outside the IETF. This is fine, but we have to provide a reference. And even
with that, it would not harm to include some short definition to provide
context. The RSU term is also defined outside the IETF and there is quite a
lot of text provided (I think the relevant part is the last sentence, the
one starting with "The difference between..."). Both terms should be handled
in the same way.
[Fygs: The definitions was issued by the FCC 20 years ago.  I have already
provided that information and references multiple times.]

- In section 3, it is mentioned that "the operating environment (vehicular
networks) brings in new perspectives" --> which are those (that are
covered/tackled by the document?

- In section 4.1, does the text mean that the MTU SHOULD/MUST be 1500
octects. If that is what is meant, this is really a normative thing that
should be written using normative text. If it is just a recommendation, then
this should be clearly written as such.

- All the text of section 4.2.1 is not normative, but more a report of what
is done today in existing implementations. Is there any different there that
is specific of 802.11-OCB?

- The privacy part of section 5 is important, as it impacts the operation of
IPv6 over this type of networks, so I think this deserves more attention.

- In section, H.1, more details about how the captures were obtained should
be provided (HW, SW, etc.).

Authors, please respond to my questions/comments and address them in a new
version of the document.

Thanks,

Carlos

_______________________________________________
its mailing list
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:07:47 +0100

Le 29/01/2018 à 15:52, François Simon a écrit :
> My comments arewithin the text*[Fygs.......]*.
[...]

> In the terminology section, the OBU term is mentioned to be defined 
> outside the IETF. This is fine, but we have to provide a reference.
> And even with that, it would not harm to include some short
> definition to provide context. The RSU term is also defined outside
> the IETF and there is quite a lot of text provided (I think the
> relevant part is the last sentence, the one starting with "The
> difference between..."). Both terms should be handled in the same
> way.
> 
> *[Fygs: The**definitions**was issued by the FCC 20 years ago.  I have
>  already provided that information**and references multiple
> times.]***

The problem with the FCC definition of OBU is that it has no 
relationship to IP.  Worse, that FCC definition has no indication that 
it MAY use IP somehow.  And here we say that all OBUs must use IP.  Do 
you see what I mean?

Do you think FCC will mind if we use the term OBU in this draft to mean 
something else?  I, and a colleague, think that FCC would not mind.

Alex

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 22:33:41 +0100

Hi François,

Thanks for your comments. Please, see mine inline below.

On Mon, 2018-01-29 at 09:52 -0500, François Simon wrote:
> From: its [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Carlos Jesús
> Bernardos Cano
> I'm the doc shepherd of this draft. I've performed a review and I
> have the following comments:
> is written and most of its content looks more like an
> Informational/BCP kind of document. There no normative text
> applicable to what needs to be done to transmit IPv6 packets over
> IEEE 802.11-OCB. This has been discussed during the F2F meeting in
> Singapore and needs to be tackled.
> that "nothing different from IPv6 over IEEE 802.11 needs to be done
> for IEEE 802.11-OCB" (at least for the current scope of the doc). If
> that is the case, maybe the document should be Informational and
> reflect just some recommendations. If there is something else that
> needs to be done, then it has to be more clearly stated (using
> normative text).
> - The abstract mentions that in order to transmit IPv6 packets on
> IEEE 802.11-OCB, "there is a need to define a few parameters such as
> the supported Maximum Transmission Unit size on the 802.11-OCB link,
> the header format preceding the IPv6 header, the Type value within
> it, and others". But the MTU part of the draft does not use any
> normative text,  the header format is exactly the same than for IEEE
> 802.11, as the type value.
> The first one is not different from regular 802.11, but for the
> second one, the document only provides recommendations.

[Carlos] I'm not an expert on the matter, but people I asked told me
that it does not. Not a major issue anyway...

> [Fygs: The definitions was issued by the FCC 20 years ago.  I have
> already provided that information and references multiple times.]

[Carlos] So then it should be easy to close this comment.

Thanks,

Carlos

> - All the text of section 4.2.1 is not normative, but more a report
> of what is done today in existing implementations. Is there any
> different there that is specific of 802.11-OCB?
> operation of IPv6 over this type of networks, so I think this
> deserves more attention.
> Authors, please respond to my questions/comments and address them in
> a new version of the document.
> Thanks,
> Carlos
> [email-masked]