Subject: Re: [ipwave] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-16

From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 17:25:14 +0000

Authors,

First, a word of thanks for the changes you have made based on my comments to date.
However, as I indicated in my 7/4/2020 message the changes did not comprehensively
address all of my intended meaning. I have therefore re-reviewed the -16 and include
pointed comments below with explicit text change/addition suggestions.

Please incorporate these changes in the next document version.

Thanks - Fred
[email-masked]

1) Section 3.1, the bullet: "Collision avoidance service of end systems
   of Urban Air Mobility (UAM).". Please cite [UAM-ITS] here on first
   use of the term "UAM".

2) Section 3.1, the second-to-last paragraph beginning "The existing IPv6
   protocol does not support wireless single-hop V2V communications as well
   as wireless multihop V2V communications." Change to: "The existing IPv6
   protocol must be augmented through the addition of an Overlay Multilink
   Network (OMNI) Interface [OMNI] and/or protocol changes in order to
   support wireless single-hop V2V communications as well as wireless
   multihop V2V communications."

3) Section 3.2, the paragraph: "The existing IPv6 protocol does not support
   wireless multihop V2I communications in a highway where RSUs are sparsely
   deployed,". Change to: "The existing IPv6 protocol must be augmented through
   the addition of an OMNI interface and/or protocol changes in order to
   support wireless multihop V2I communications in a highway where RSUs are
   sparsely deployed,".

4) Section 3.3, the paragraph: "The existing IPv6 protocol does not support
   wireless mutihop V2X (or V2I2X) communications in an urban road network
   where RSUs are deployed at intersections,". Change to: "The existing IPv6
   protocol must be augmented through the addition of an OMNI interface and/or
   protocol changes in order to support wireless multihop V2X (or V2I2X)
   communications in an urban road network where RSUs are deployed
   at intersections.,".

5) Section 4.1, the sentence: "For example, RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for
   Low-Power and Lossy Networks) [RFC6550] can be extended to support a
   multihop V2I since a vehicle". Change to: "For example, the OMNI interface
   and/or RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) [RFC6550]
   can be extended to support a multihop V2I since a vehicle"

6) Section 4.1, the paragraph beginning: "Multiple vehicles under the coverage
   of an RSU share a prefix such that mobile nodes share a prefix of a Wi-Fi
   access point in a wireless LAN." Add the following as a final sentence to
   this paragraph: "Alternatively, mobile nodes can employ an OMNI interface
   and use their own IPv6 Unique Local Addresses (ULAs) [RFC4193] over the
   wireless network without requiring stateless address autoconfiguration-related
   messaging using an on-link prefix provided by the (visited) wireless LAN;
   this technique is known as "Bring-Your-Own-Addresses".

7) Section 4.1, the paragraph beginning: "A single subnet prefix announced by
   an RSU can span multiple vehicles in VANET." Add the following as a final
   sentence to this paragraph: "Alternatively, each vehicle could employ an
   OMNI interface with their own ULAs such that no topologically-oriented
   subnet prefixes need be announced by the RSU."

8) Section 4.1, the paragraph beginning: "An IPv6 mobility solution is needed
   for the guarantee of communication continuity". Add "AERO" as a second
   example of a network-based mobility management scheme, i.e., change the
   final sentence to "...or a network-based mobility management scheme
   (e.g., PMIPv6 [RFC5213], AERO [RFC6706BIS], etc.)."

9)  Section 4.2, Figure 3 shows the address "2001:DB8:1:1::/64" on the
   wireless interface of Vehicle1. Place parenthesis around this address
   (i.e., as "(2001:DB8:1:1::/64)") to indicate that the address will
   not be present when the OMNI interface is used (see next comment).

10) Section 4.2, the paragraph beginning: "As shown in Figure 3, global
    IPv6 addresses are used for the wireless link interfaces for IP-OBU and
    IP-RSU,". Change to: "As shown in Figure 3, the addresses used for
    IPv6 transmissions over the wireless link interfaces for IP-OBU and
    IP-RSU can be either global IPv6 addresses, or IPv6 ULAs as long as
    IPv6 packets can be routed within vehicular networks [OMNI]. When
    global IPv6 addresses are used, wireless interface configuration and
    control overhead for DAD and MLD should be minimized to support V2I
    and V2X communications for vehicles moving fast along roadways; when
    ULAs and the OMNI interface are used, no DAD nor MLD messaging is
    needed."

11) Section 4.3, Figure 4, same comment as 9) above - place parenthesis
    around the address "(2001:DB8:1:1::/64)".

12) Section 4.3, the sentence: "Vehicle1's IP-OBU1 (as a mobile router)
    and Vehicle2's IP-OBU2 (as a mobile router) use 2001:DB8:1:1::/64 for
    an external link (e.g., DSRC) for V2V networking." Add a new sentence
    immediately after this one as follows: "Alternatively, Vehicle1 and
    Vehicle2 employ an OMNI interface and use IPv6 ULAs for V2V networking."

13) Section 5.1, first paragraph, the sentence: IPv6 ND is designed for
    point-to-point links and transit links (e.g., Ethernet). Change to:
    "IPv6 ND is designed for link types including point-to-point,
    multicast-capable (e.g., Ethernet) and Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA)."

14) Section 5.1, first paragraph, final sentence ending: "such as MAC
    Address Resolution (AR), Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) and
    Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD)." Change to: "such as MAC
    Address Resolution (AR), Duplicate Address Detection (DAD), Multicast
    Listener Discovery (MLD) and Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD)."

15) Section 5.1.1 (Link Model), the sentence: "Note that the OMNI link model
    supports these multihop V2V and V2I through an OMNI multilink service
    [OMNI-Interface].", change to: "Note that the OMNI interface supports
    an NBMA link model where multihop V2V and V2I communications use each
    mobile node's ULAs without need for any DAD or MLD messaging."

16) Section 5.1.1, the sentence: "IPv6 protocols work under certain assumptions
    for the link model that do not necessarily hold in a vehicular wireless
    link [VIP-WAVE][RFC5889]". Change to: "IPv6 protocols work under certain
    assumptions that do not necessarily hold for vehicular wireless access
    link types other than OMNI/NBMA [VIP-WAVE][RFC5889]; the rest of this
    section discusses implications for those link types that do not apply
    when the OMNI/NBMA link model is used.".

17) Section 5.1.1, final paragraph, change to: "Thus, in IPv6-based vehicular
    networking, the vehicular link model should have minimum changes for
    interoperability with standard IPv6 links in an efficient fashion to support
    IPv6 DAD, MLD and NUD operations. When the OMNI NBMA link model is used,
    there are no link model changes nor DAD/MLD messaging required."

18) Section 5.1.3, the sentence: "For multihop V2V communications in either
    a VANET or VANETs via IP-RSUs, a vehicular ad hoc routing protocol (e.g.,
    AODV or OLSRv2) may be required". Please either enumerate all protocol
    types (e.g., AODV, DSR, OLSRv2, OSPF-MANET, TBRPF, etc.) or simply refer
    to them collectively as "MANET protocols". Suggestion is the later, and
    proposed rewrite is: "For multihop V2V communications in either a VANET
    or VANETs via IP-RSUs, a vehicular Mobile Ad-hoc Networking (MANET)
    routing protocol may be required".

19) Throughout the document, please change the citation for OMNI from
    "[OMNI-Interface]" to simply "[OMNI]".

> This is the IPWAVE WG Last Call for "IPv6 Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE): Problem Statement and Use Cases”
> <draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-16>.  Please review the document and send your comments to the list by 26 July 2020.
> 
> The datatracker page for the document is https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking/
> 
> Thanks,
> Russ & Carlos
> 
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

---

From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 11:25:02 +0900

Hi Fred,
I think your suggested text looks good to me.
If there are no comments on your text, I will reflect them on the next
revision.

Thanks a lot.

Best Regards,
Paul

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 2:25 AM Templin (US), Fred L <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> > This is the IPWAVE WG Last Call for "IPv6 Wireless Access in Vehicular
> Environments (IPWAVE): Problem Statement and Use Cases”
> > <draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-16>.  Please review the document
> and send your comments to the list by 26 July 2020.
> >
> > The datatracker page for the document is
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking/
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Russ & Carlos
> >

-- 
===========================
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: +82-31-299-4957
Email: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
<http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>