Subject: [ipwave] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 08:40:15 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.11 Networks in mode Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set (IPv6-over-80211ocb)
        Authors         : Alexandre Petrescu
                          Nabil Benamar
                          Jérôme Härri
                          Christian Huitema
                          Jong-Hyouk Lee
                          Thierry Ernst
                          Tony Li
	Filename        : draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-04.txt
	Pages           : 34
	Date            : 2017-08-17

Abstract:
   In order to transmit IPv6 packets on IEEE 802.11 networks run outside
   the context of a basic service set (OCB, earlier "802.11p") there is
   a need to define a few parameters such as the recommended Maximum
   Transmission Unit size, the header format preceding the IPv6 header,
   the Type value within it, and others.  This document describes these
   parameters for IPv6 and IEEE 802.11 OCB networks; it portrays the
   layering of IPv6 on 802.11 OCB similarly to other known 802.11 and
   Ethernet layers - by using an Ethernet Adaptation Layer.

   In addition, the document attempts to list what is different in
   802.11 OCB (802.11p) compared to more 'traditional' 802.11a/b/g/n
   layers, layers over which IPv6 protocols operates without issues.
   Most notably, the operation outside the context of a BSS (OCB) has
   impact on IPv6 handover behaviour and on IPv6 security.

   An example of an IPv6 packet captured while transmitted over an IEEE
   802.11 OCB link (802.11p) is given.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-04
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-04

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Sandra Céspedes U. <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 12:14:33 -0300

Hello

Hera are my comments on draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-04:

 1. I suggest to choose only one way to address the 802.11 technology in
    the document. You have 802.11-OCB, 802.11 OCB, 802.11-2012 OCB, IEEE
    802.11 OCB, and 802.11p. At some point it is mentioned that "In the
    following text we use the term "802.11p" to mean 802.11-2012 OCB."
    However, in the next paragraph it goes back to 802.11 OCB, so it
    seems inconsistent.
 2. In page 4, suggest to change "These points are consequences of the
    OCB operation which is particular to 802.11 OCB (Outside the Context
    of a BSS)" for "These points are consequences of the Outside the
    Context of a BSS operation which is particular to 802.11 OCB".
 3. In page 4, there seems to be a contradiction. In the first paragraph
    is mentioned that "while there is no encryption applied below the
    network  layer using 802.11p, 1609.2 [ieee1609.2] does provide
    security services for applications to use so that there can easily
    be data security over the air without invoking IPsec." However, in
    the fifth paragraph is mentioned that "the IP security mechanisms
    are necessary, since OCB means that 802.11 is stripped of all 802.11
    link-layer security;".  I understood that IPSec wasn't necessary but
    the last phrase seems to say the opposite. Am I wrong?
 4. In page 7, suggest to change "(IPv6 is layered on top of LLC on top
    of 802.11 OCB similarly as on top of LLC on top of 802.11a/b/g/n,
    and as on top of LLC on top of 802.3)" to "(IPv6 is layered on top
    of LLC on top of 802.11 OCB, in the same way that IPv6 is layered on
    top of LLC on top of 802.11a/b/g/n (for WLAN) or layered on top of
    LLC on top of 802.3 (for Ethernet))".
 5. In page 7, suggest to change "This band is "5.9GHz" which is
    different from the bands "2.4GHz" or "5GHz" used by Wireless LAN" to
    "The 5.9GHz band is different from the 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands used by
    Wireless LAN".  Same suggestion to other appearances in the same
    paragraph.
 6. In page 7 you mention " In the list below, the only 802.11 OCB
    fundamental points which influence IPv6 are the OCB operation and
    the 12Mbit/s maximum which may be afforded by the IPv6
    applications."  I found the description for OCB operation but none
    for the 12Mbit/s maximum (not sure if you are referring to a maximum
    data rate? I thought it was actually 27 Mbps), so it is not clear
    how the second "fundamental point" influences the operation of IPv6.
 7. In Appendix C.1, perhaps it should be mentioned that relaying on an
    identifier obtained from the MAC address might not be possible not
    only in the presence of multiple 802.11-OCB NICs, but also if there
    is randomization of MAC addresses.
 8. Appendix C.2 defines several MUSTs for authentication, time
    synchronization, etc. Why is this defined as an appendix and not in
    the main document?

Typos:

Abstract:
- layers over which IPv6 protocols operates --> layers over which IPV6 
protocols operate
Introduction:
- Such a station, when it has the flag set, it uses --> Such a station, 
when it has the flag set, uses
Terminology:
-  OCB: outside the context of a basic service set (BSS): --> OCB 
(Outside the context of a Basic Service Set - BSS):
Page 6:
-Note that in earlier 802.11p documents the term "OCBEnabled" was used 
instead of te current "OCBActivated". --> Note that in earlier 802.11p 
documents the term "OCBEnabled" was used instead of the current 
"OCBActivated".
Page 10:
- The Equivalent Transmit Time on Channel --> The Equivalent Transmit 
Time on Channel  (ETTC)
Page 18:
-In the IEEE 802.11 data, the destination address is 33:33:00:00:00:01
    which is he corresponding multicast MAC address. --> In
    the IEEE 802.11 data, the destination address is 33:33:00:00:00:01
    which is the corresponding multicast MAC address.
Page 29:
-However, the high mobility,strong link asymetry --> However, the high 
mobility,
    strong link asymmetry
- Automotive networks require the unique representation of each of
    their node -->  Automotive networks require the unique 
representation of each node
- IEEE 802.11-OCB link MUST support strong link asymetry --> IEEE 
802.11-OCB link MUST support strong link asymmetry

Regards,

Sandra Céspedes

-- 

Sandra L. Céspedes, Ph.D. | Assistant Professor
Department of Electrical Engineering
Universidad de Chile
Av. Tupper 2007, Santiago, Chile. 8370451
Tel. +56 (2) 29784093 | Of. 504
URL:http://www.cec.uchile.cl/~scespedes <http://www.cec.uchile.cl/%7Escespedes>

On 18-08-2017 12:40, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus