Subject: [ipwave] 6lo pretentions, intarea review, referral to mbone wireless draft, issues of wireless networks

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2019 19:33:37 +0200

Hi,

I need to say a few different things:

The intarea review does contain useful information that I will merge in 
the IP-over-OCB document soon.  It has identified some text issues, 
duplications, and some incoherence.

The 6lo pretentions (including the referral to RFC8505 request) may be 
too disconnected.  We may need to explain better what is an IP-over-foo 
document, what is OCB, and similar.

The multicast wireless mbone draft is already referred to by the 
IP-over-OCB draft.

The ND running on wireless (like any other protocol running on wireless) 
may have some theoretical issues.  We may have to write about them - 
again - in the IP-over-OCB draft.  They are theoretical issues.

Alex

---

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2019 10:48:31 -0700

Hello Alex,

Maybe it's a problem with language, but what do you mean by 
"pretentions" in your email below?

Multicast ND "works", because clearly ND packets have been known to be 
transmitted and received over wireless using multicast. It's better to 
say that RFC 8505 makes ND more scalable by reducing the reliance on 
multicast.  Whether or not that is useful for IP-over-OCB should be an 
interesting discussion, but the discussion needs to start off using a 
more accurate understanding of the claims.

Also, if you have any comments about the [mboned] draft, please send 
them soon -- either to me, or on this list, or on the mboned mailing list.

Regards,
Charlie P.

On 4/7/2019 10:33 AM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> The intarea review does contain useful information that I will merge 
> in the IP-over-OCB document soon.  It has identified some text issues, 
> too disconnected.  We may need to explain better what is an 
> IP-over-foo document, what is OCB, and similar.
>
> The ND running on wireless (like any other protocol running on 
> wireless) may have some theoretical issues.  We may have to write 
> about them - again - in the IP-over-OCB draft.  They are theoretical 
> issues.
>
> Alex
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:38:34 +0200

Hello Charlie,

> "pretentions" in your email below?

I mean "claims".

Probably the word "pretentions" is too... pretentious.

The claims to include 6lo RECOMMENDATIONs are too disconnected from
802.11-OCB.

> Multicast ND "works", because clearly ND packets have been known to
> be transmitted and received over wireless using multicast. It's
> better to say that RFC 8505 makes ND more scalable by reducing the
> reliance on multicast.

The Address Registration semantics of RFC 8505 seem to make ND more
reliability in certain cases.

That is not implemented in 802.11-OCB.

> Whether or not that is useful for IP-over-OCB should be an 

I agree it would be an interesting discussion.  I would like to 
participate to it.

But not to block this document.  This document is ready since some time 
now.  The ND has been discussed with 6man as requested since 2 IETFs.  I 
think you are not aware of that discussion.  On my side, I am not aware 
we need to go two times through ND: one with 6man and one with 6lo, 
probably others?

There are more opportunities in the future to develop and implement ND 
extensions fo verhicular according to 6lo, and maybe others: there is 
potentially IPv6-over-WiFi, IPv6-over-802.11bd, and probably others.

>  them soon -- either to me, or on this list, or on the mboned mailing

I will need to take the time and send to mboned list.  But now I have to 
work on the comments of intarea review for IPv6-over-OCB.

Yours,

Alex

> Regards, Charlie P.
>> The intarea review does contain useful information that I will
>> merge in the IP-over-OCB document soon.  It has identified some
>> text issues, duplications, and some incoherence.
>> 
>> The 6lo pretentions (including the referral to RFC8505 request) may
>> be too disconnected.  We may need to explain better what is an 
>> about them - again - in the IP-over-OCB draft.  They are
>> theoretical issues.
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ its mailing list 
>> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its