Subject: [ipwave] To the Chair if available ( was RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-08

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 23:39:42 +0200

to William and to the WG chair,

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 6:29 PM, William Whyte <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Hi Tony,
> [...]

>>
>> Once you ignore all of the (albeit extremely important) L2 mechanisms
>>> that go on behind the scenes, 802.11 looks just like an Ethernet interface.
>>> If we do it right, 802.11-OCB will too. That’s the whole point of this
>>> document.
>>>
>>
>> So is the point to ignore that we have a wireless network, so we assume
>> our network is wired. That was many old approaches in IPv4 networks, we
>> need to move on to better approaches for IPv6. This sounds like we assume
>> what is not true to be true, so that means BAD service. IMHO, those
>> assumptions in the old days of IPv4 and now in many IPv4 networks can work
>> ok because they are fixed-wireless, they have no WAVE scenarios, now I
>> think our WG are required to look into transmitting IP packets into real
>> scenarios of WAVE.
>>
>>
>> [AB] Why will we ignore L2 mechanism (which is 802.11 in our doc title as
>> an objective) but still the main objective is to transmit over it? I think
>> we need to be clear in the document of such assumption or ignorance.
>> However, I am not in favour to ignore the 802.11 mechanisms just to make
>> things simple.
>>
>>
>>
>> That’s a bold claim, and one that I can’t agree with. My work with DSRC
>> shows that it works just fine without any special considerations. To the
>> host, it looks like an Ethernet. If you have evidence to the contrary,
>> please put it on the table.
>>
>
Ethernet encapsulation is not general solution for all MAC protocols in ITS
or WAVE (or future standards). If it works in specific scenario does not
mean you put something on the table which I can understand.

> Until then, please stop spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
>>
>
I don't spread your opinions, your wrong, please use words carefully,
Fear of what? not sure why fear while discussing.
You make me fear now to discuss on this list while no chair making order!!!

Where did you understand from my message that I spread fear? if I am trying
to make sure that our work is best, which does not mean fear, only to who
is not sure of what is on the table. I need the WG chair to make things
clear to me please.
I don't define my discussion as fear, but open minds to think together for
the best. .

I hope the chair/AD says something here!!!!

Please don't tell me to stop discussing even the AD cannot say that.

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 00:11:25 +0200

Hi WG Chair,

another question which is important, I get on this list one opinion from
two participants, is it the WG direction, as:

We will ignore the L2 mechanisms, it is out of scope of IETF. IETF cannot
standard below IPv6. It is not in the IETF’s purview to change L2
mechanisms. We should use other SDO use documented mechanisms.

please explain,

Thanks

AB

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 11:39 PM, Abdussalam Baryun <
[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> [AB] Why will we ignore L2 mechanism (which is 802.11 in our doc title
>>> as an objective) but still the main objective is to transmit over it? I
>>> think we need to be clear in the document of such assumption or ignorance.
> Ethernet encapsulation is not general solution for all MAC protocols in
> ITS or WAVE (or future standards). If it works in specific scenario does
> not mean you put something on the table which I can understand.
>
>
> Where did you understand from my message that I spread fear? if I am
> trying to make sure that our work is best, which does not mean fear, only
> to who is not sure of what is on the table. I need the WG chair to make
> things clear to me please.
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>
>

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 00:32:10 +0000

HI AB,

On Oct 8, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Hi WG Chair,

another question which is important, I get on this list one opinion from two participants, is it the WG direction, as:

The WG direction is as specified in the charter.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ipwave/about/

We will ignore the L2 mechanisms, it is out of scope of IETF. IETF cannot standard below IPv6. It is not in the IETF’s purview to change L2 mechanisms. We should use other SDO use documented mechanisms.

The primary deliverable of the WG is to define IPv6 over the specific L2 (802.11-OCB). I am not sure what you are objecting to here. Can you point out the specific text in

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-09

that you think redefines L2 mechanisms?

Thanks
Suresh

---

From: William Whyte <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 20:56:26 -0400

Hi AB -- the quotes you were responding to were from Tony Li, not from me.

Cheers,

William

-- 

PLEASE UPDATE YOUR ADDRESS BOOKS WITH MY NEW ADDRESS:
[email-masked]

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 02:57:47 +0200

Hi Suresh,

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]> wrote:

> HI AB,
>
> On Oct 8, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi WG Chair,
>

That is good

> The primary deliverable of the WG is to define IPv6 over the specific L2 (802.11-OCB).
> I am not sure what you are objecting to here.
>

 I am asking (the above paragraph is not my opinion). There are two
participants said similar thing of IETF does not do L2 or below IPv6
recommendation or specification, Or they say IETF is to ignore below IPv6
or use other SDOs L2.

What is your advise to me or to the list?

I have been in IETF for some time and I have not seen this approach of :
IETF is only about L3 and above, and other SDOs can do any layer.

> Can you point out the specific text in
>

I don't want to redefine, we design here but we don't ignore the network
from L0 until L7

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 03:57:12 +0200

Hi William and WG chair,

I apologies for my mistake, I now checked the discussion list and that
message from Tony (he used different address)  was not received in my
email. Tony should not send me a message that I did not receive, it made
me confused in my work with IETF. I only seen the words from your message
to him. However, I still think it is important that the WG Chair makes sure
we discuss without people calling others words attached to them.

> Hi AB -- the quotes you were responding to were from Tony Li, not from me.

Sorry again. I ask the WG chair to contact Tony to stop disturbing my
discussions/work.

AB

Cheers,
>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 6:29 PM, William Whyte <[email-masked]
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Tony,
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> However, I am not in favour to ignore the 802.11 mechanisms just to
>>>> make things simple.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
It is Tony that is wrong in his language to the list. Again, Sorry William,

>> I don't define my discussion as fear, but open minds to think together
>> for the best. .
>>

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:28:00 -0400

Hi AB,

> On Oct 8, 2017, at 9:57 PM, Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi William and WG chair,
> 
> I apologies for my mistake, I now checked the discussion list and that message from Tony (he used different address)  was not received in my email. Tony should not send me a message that I did not receive, it made me confused in my work with IETF.

Not sure what you mean here. Your quoting style makes it very difficult to figure out who said what and what you are talking about. If Tony did not send you a mail, how did you know it was directed to you?

> I only seen the words from your message to him. However, I still think it is important that the WG Chair makes sure we discuss without people calling others words attached to them.
> 
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:56 AM, William Whyte <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> Sorry again. I ask the WG chair to contact Tony to stop disturbing my discussions/work.

Huh? First of all, I am not sure what Tony is doing to disturb your discussions/work. He is a WG participant and is free to comment on the technical discussions in the WG.

Regards
Suresh

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 05:13:55 +0200

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 4:28 AM, Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> me confused in my work with IETF.
>
>
> Not sure what you mean here. Your quoting style makes it very difficult to
> figure out who said what and what you are talking about. If Tony did not
> send you a mail, how did you know it was directed to you?
>
> I only seen the words from your message to him. However, I still think it
> is important that the WG Chair makes sure we discuss without people calling
> others words attached to them.
>
> Huh? First of all, I am not sure what Tony is doing to disturb your
> discussions/work. He is a WG participant and is free to comment on the
> technical discussions in the WG.
>

I think you did not follow up the discussion list but you should. Tony
should not say to a participant  to stop spreading fear,...

 what do you think, is that technical tone.