Subject: [ipwave] ipwave - comments and concerns

From: "Kevin Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 10:29:44 -0700

Dear IETF ipwave working group,

My name is Kevin Smith, I am the technical editor for IEEE Std 1609.3 and a
few others in the 1609 family of standards. I have some concerns regarding
ipwave's interoperability with 1609 WAVE, and a question regarding the need
or purpose for ipwave.

1.       If ipwave is intended to be interoperable with 1609 WAVE, then
ipwave must specify the use of EtherType Protocol Discrimination (EPD) in
the LLC sublayer header, i.e., EPD is mandatory. I note that ipwave mentions
EPD, but also SNAP and does not specify which method to use. Moreover ipwave
discusses an abstract "Ethernet Adaptation Layer" but does not specify a
header format, and this further confuses the question for deployers - what
should we implement?   

2.       It is not clear that ipwave provides any functionality that 1609
WAVE does not already provide. 1609 WAVE includes a number of mechanisms
that enable IPv6 networks to be configured. In addition to the WSA/WRA
mechanism, 1609.3 allows any IETF protocols to be implemented, e.g., IETF
RFC 4861, Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6) (which is listed as a
normative reference in 1609.3). Helpful would be some example use-cases that
illustrate problems to be solved, and how ipwave will solve those problems
(i.e., that 1609 WAVE does not already solve). 

My concern is that the IETF ipwave document may cause significant confusion
among deployers, and possibly lead to a lack of interoperability. Thank you
for the opportunity to comment, I look forward to the discussion.

Best regards,

Kevin

---

From: Tijink Jasja <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 18:45:53 +0000

Hello List,

my name is Jasja Tijink and i am a member of the IEEE 1609 working group.
I share Kevin's view as per the e-mail below. I believe these aspects need to be clarified in the draft-ietf- ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-21 before it can be considered ready.

Best regards,

Jasja

Von: its [mailto:[email-masked]] Im Auftrag von Kevin Smith
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. März 2018 18:30
An: [email-masked]
Betreff: [ipwave] ipwave - comments and concerns

My name is Kevin Smith, I am the technical editor for IEEE Std 1609.3 and a few others in the 1609 family of standards. I have some concerns regarding ipwave's interoperability with 1609 WAVE, and a question regarding the need or purpose for ipwave.

  1.  If ipwave is intended to be interoperable with 1609 WAVE, then ipwave must specify the use of EtherType Protocol Discrimination (EPD) in the LLC sublayer header, i.e., EPD is mandatory. I note that ipwave mentions EPD, but also SNAP and does not specify which method to use. Moreover ipwave discusses an abstract "Ethernet Adaptation Layer" but does not specify a header format, and this further confuses the question for deployers - what should we implement?

  1.  It is not clear that ipwave provides any functionality that 1609 WAVE does not already provide. 1609 WAVE includes a number of mechanisms that enable IPv6 networks to be configured. In addition to the WSA/WRA mechanism, 1609.3 allows any IETF protocols to be implemented, e.g., IETF RFC 4861, Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6) (which is listed as a normative reference in 1609.3). Helpful would be some example use-cases that illustrate problems to be solved, and how ipwave will solve those problems (i.e., that 1609 WAVE does not already solve).

My concern is that the IETF ipwave document may cause significant confusion among deployers, and possibly lead to a lack of interoperability. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, I look forward to the discussion.

Best regards,
Kevin