+1 I was going to write something similar to what Brian wrote. This document says it is a problem statement, but then becomes a solution document. Might be better to cut it down to only the problem statement part.
I also noted as Brian points out that the solution part appears to be dependent on OMNI given the “must” language, but OMNI is an informational reference. This seems like a disconnect. Bob > On Jun 14, 2021, at 8:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thanks for the heads-up, Erik. > > This text at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-20#page-9 > >> Therefore, the existing IPv6 protocol can be >> augmented through the addition of an Overlay Multilink Network (OMNI) >> Interface [OMNI] and/or protocol changes in order to support both >> wireless single-hop/multihop V2V communications and multiple radio >> technologies in vehicular networks. > > is of concern regardless of the mention of OMNI. Does it mean "can be" or > "needs to be"? This paragraph seems like a very short summary of a big > problem area. At the end of page 13 there is some related discussion, which > mentions RPL as part of the solution (good choice, IMHO) but again seems to > depend on OMNI. I don't think the fix of simply removing references to OMNI > works, because it would leave a gap. In an informational document, that is > not a formal problem but as far as this draft describes architecture, I don't > think that big a gap is reasonable. "OMNI" is mentioned more than 20 times in > the document. There are also several references to AERO, which is strongly > associated with OMNI. > > At this point I became confused about the purpose of the document. The > Abstract says > >> This document discusses the problem statement and use cases of >> IPv6-based vehicular networking > > In fact, most of section 4 seems to be a draft architecture of a solution. > >> 5. Problem Statement >> >> In order to specify protocols using the architecture mentioned in >> Section 4.1, IPv6 core protocols have to be adapted to overcome >> certain challenging aspects of vehicular networking. > > That's a big leap. But the rest of section 5 seems to get back to solution > design. > > So I am left puzzled about what would happen next if this draft becomes an > RFC. Do the authors expect 6man to work on the issues they've raised? I'm not > sure they match 6man's limited charter ("not chartered to develop major > changes or additions > to the IPv6 specifications"). > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 15-Jun-21 13:07, Erik Kline wrote: >> +6man, since there are many statements about IPv6 work in this document. >> >> One thing of note: in the time after this document was WGLC'd, 6man >> held an adoption call on OMNI that did not result in adoption [OMNI]. >> There are at two places where this text appears: >> >> "The existing IPv6 protocol must be augmented through the addition of >> an OMNI interface..." >> >> These statements should probably be revised (or removed). >> >> -Erik >> >> [OMNI] >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/s1S49EYPThX34Gowu4ExPgFb32k/ >> >> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 7:02 AM The IESG <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> The IESG has received a request from the IP Wireless Access in Vehicular >>> Environments WG (ipwave) to consider the following document: - 'IPv6 >>> Wireless >>> Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE): Problem >>> Statement and Use Cases' >>> <draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-20.txt> as Informational RFC >>> >>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final >>> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >>> [email protected] mailing lists by 2021-06-28. Exceptionally, comments may >>> be sent to [email protected] instead. In either case, please retain the >>> beginning >>> of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >>> >>> Abstract >>> >>> >>> This document discusses the problem statement and use cases of >>> IPv6-based vehicular networking for Intelligent Transportation >>> Systems (ITS). The main scenarios of vehicular communications are >>> vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and >>> vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications. First, this document >>> explains use cases using V2V, V2I, and V2X networking. Next, for >>> IPv6-based vehicular networks, it makes a gap analysis of current >>> IPv6 protocols (e.g., IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, Mobility Management, >>> and Security & Privacy), and then enumerates requirements for the >>> extensions of those IPv6 protocols for IPv6-based vehicular >>> networking. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The file can be obtained via >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking/ >>> >>> >>> >>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> [email protected] >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
