If you go back and check 2017 archives, I did raise many of these
issues. But, we clearly decided to limit the scope excluding address
configuration, DAD, ND aspect, link models. When there is such a scope
statement, it should clearly move these comments to the draft that
defines how ND works for 802.11-OCB links.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/9NvUfRigGd4Klu0Q2Ee-63ziATw
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/VcrwNSvNJVIZNcRLNjDY0iSw3CA
Sri
From: its <its-bounces@xxxxxxxx <mailto:its-bounces@xxxxxxxx>> on behalf
of Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:sgundave@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday, April 12, 2019 at 7:38 AM
To: Nabil Benamar <benamar73@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:benamar73@xxxxxxxxx>>,
"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:pthubert@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "ietf@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf@xxxxxxxx>" <ietf@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:ietf@xxxxxxxx>>, "its@xxxxxxxx <mailto:its@xxxxxxxx>"
<its@xxxxxxxx <mailto:its@xxxxxxxx>>, "int-dir@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:int-dir@xxxxxxxx>" <int-dir@xxxxxxxx <mailto:int-dir@xxxxxxxx>>,
Nabil Benamar <n.benamar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:n.benamar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
"draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@xxxxxxxx>"
<draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@xxxxxxxx>>, Alexandre
Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Intdir early review of
draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34
I am not following these discussions. From my point of view, many of
the discussions are totally out of scope for this document.
Some one needs to moderate these discussions.
Sri
From: its <its-bounces@xxxxxxxx <mailto:its-bounces@xxxxxxxx>> on behalf
of Nabil Benamar <benamar73@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:benamar73@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday, April 12, 2019 at 7:34 AM
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:pthubert@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "ietf@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf@xxxxxxxx>" <ietf@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:ietf@xxxxxxxx>>, "its@xxxxxxxx <mailto:its@xxxxxxxx>"
<its@xxxxxxxx <mailto:its@xxxxxxxx>>, "int-dir@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:int-dir@xxxxxxxx>" <int-dir@xxxxxxxx <mailto:int-dir@xxxxxxxx>>,
Nabil Benamar <n.benamar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:n.benamar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
"draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@xxxxxxxx>"
<draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@xxxxxxxx>>, Alexandre
Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Intdir early review of
draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34
Hello Pascal,
I seconded Akex and would like to suggest you to add the missing text in
the draft.
Best regards
Nabil
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019, 14:01 Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:pthubert@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hello Nabil.____
__ __
You will get a number of IESG reviews as part of the submission
process, one per area. This is just a beginning…____
__ __
Cheers,____
__ __
Pascal____
__ __
*From:* NABIL BENAMAR <n.benamar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:n.benamar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
*Sent:* lundi 8 avril 2019 17:53
*To:* Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx>>
*Cc:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:pthubert@xxxxxxxxx>>; int-dir@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:int-dir@xxxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf@xxxxxxxx>;
its@xxxxxxxx <mailto:its@xxxxxxxx>;
draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@xxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* Re: Intdir early review of
draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34____
__ __
Yes definitely Alex....____
__ __
There have been many reviews until now. This should be a late or
final review.____
__ __
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019, 10:01 Alexandre Petrescu
<alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx>>
wrote:____
As a note: please improve the title of this.____
It is not an early review.____
It is a late review.____
There have been several reviews of this document until here, and
two shepherd reviews.____
Alex____
Le 04/03/2019 à 12:24, Pascal Thubert a écrit :____
Reviewer: Pascal Thubert____
Review result: Not Ready____
__ __
Reviewer: Pascal Thubert____
Review result: Not ready. Need to clarify IEEE relationship, IOW which SDO____
defines the use of L2 fields, what this spec enforces vs. recognizes as being____
used that way based on IEEE work. The use of IPv6 ND requires a lot more____
thoughts, recommendation to use 6LoWPAN ND. The definition of a subnet is____
unclear. It seems that RSUs would have prefixes but that is not discussed.____
__ __
I am an assigned INT and IOT directorates reviewer for <____
draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34 >. These comments were written____
primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and____
shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments____
from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last____
Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate,____
seehttps://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/____
__ __
Majors issues____
-----------------____
__ __
“____
__ __
o Exceptions due to different operation of IPv6 network layer on____
802.11 than on Ethernet.____
__ __
“____
Is this doc scoped to OCB or 802.11 in general? Is there an expectation that an____
implementer of IPv6 over Wi-Fi refers to this doc? Spelled as above, it seems____
that you are defining the LLC. Figure 1 shows the proposed adaptation layer as____
IEEE LLC work. Who defines those fields, IETF or IEEE, or mixed? Who defines____
their use? If this spec defines a new LLC header (vs. how to use an IEEE field)____
then it should be very clear, and the newly defined fields should be isolated____
from IEEE fields.____
__ __
"____
The IPv6 packet transmitted on 802.11-OCB MUST be immediately____
preceded by a Logical Link Control (LLC) header and an 802.11 header.____
__ __
"____
Is there anything new or specific to OCB vs. classical 802.11 operations?____
If/when this is echoing the IEEE specs then this text should not use uppercase____
but say something like: 'Per IEEE Std 802.11, the IPv6 packet transmitted on____
802.11-OCB is immediately preceded by a Logical Link Control (LLC) header and____
an 802.11 header ...'____
__ __
different things? Why define both?____
__ __
" An 'adaptation' layer is inserted between a MAC layer and the____
Networking layer. This is used to transform some parameters between____
their form expected by the IP stack and the form provided by the MAC____
layer.____
"____
Is this different from what an AP does when it bridges Wi-Fi to Ethernet? Is____
this IETF business?____
__ __
"____
The Receiver and Transmitter Address fields in the 802.11 header MUST____
contain the same values as the Destination and the Source Address____
fields in the Ethernet II Header, respectively.____
"____
Same, this is IEEE game isn't it?____
__ __
"____
__ __
Solutions for these problems SHOULD____
consider the OCB mode of operation.____
"____
This is not specific enough to be actionable. I suggest to remove this sentence.____
It would be of interest for the people defining those solutions to understand____
the specific needs of OCB vs. Wi Fi, but I do not see text about that.____
__ __
"____
__ __
The method of forming IIDs____
described in section 4 of [RFC2464] MAY be used during transition____
time.____
"____
Contradicts section 4.3 that says____
"____
Among these types of____
addresses only the IPv6 link-local addresses MAY be formed using an____
EUI-64 identifier.____
"____
__ __
"____
__ __
This____
subnet MUST use at least the link-local prefix fe80::/10 and the____
interfaces MUST be assigned IPv6 addresses of type link-local.____
"____
If this is conforming IPv6 then the MUST is not needed.____
__ __
"____
A subnet is formed by the external 802.11-OCB interfaces of vehicles____
that are in close range (not by their in-vehicle interfaces).____
"____
Is the definition transitive? Do we really get a subnet?____
A is close to B who is close to C .... to Z, makes Paris one subnet! Are you____
talking about a link, rather?____
__ __
"____
The Neighbor Discovery protocol (ND) [RFC4861] MUST be used over____
802.11-OCB links.____
"____
__ __
IPv6 ND is not suited for a non-broadcast network. How does DAD work?____
Maybe you could consider RFC 6775 / RFC 8505 instead.____
__ __
"____
In the moment the MAC address is changed____
on an 802.11-OCB interface all the Interface Identifiers of IPv6____
addresses assigned to that interface MUST change.____
"____
Why is that? This is unexpected, and hopefully wrong.____
__ __
Minor issues____
---------------____
__ __
" OCB (outside the context of a basic service set - BSS): A mode of____
operation in which a STA is not a member of a BSS and does not____
utilize IEEE Std 802.11 authentication, association, or data____
confidentiality.____
__ __
802.11-OCB: mode specified in IEEE Std 802.11-2016 when the MIB____
attribute dot11OCBActivited is true. Note: compliance with standards____
and regulations set in different countries when using the 5.9GHz____
frequency band is required.____
"____
__ __
Are these 2 different things?____
__ __
"____
Among these types of____
addresses only the IPv6 link-local addresses MAY be formed using an____
EUI-64 identifier.____
"____
This text should not be in a LL specific section since it deals with the other____
addresses. Maybe rename the section to "addressing" or something?____
__ __
"____
For privacy, the link-local address MAY be formed according to the____
mechanisms described in Section 5.2.____
"____
The MAY is not helpful. I suggest to remove the sentence that does not bring____
value vs. 5.2____
__ __
Could you make sections 4.3 and 4.5 contiguous?____
__ __
"____
If semantically____
opaque Interface Identifiers are needed, a potential method for____
generating semantically opaque Interface Identifiers with IPv6____
Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is given in [RFC7217]...____
__ __
Semantically opaque Interface Identifiers, instead of meaningful____
Interface Identifiers derived from a valid and meaningful MAC address____
([RFC2464], section 4), MAY be needed in order to avoid certain____
privacy risks.____
__ __
...____
__ __
In order to avoid these risks, opaque Interface Identifiers MAY be____
formed according to rules described in [RFC7217]. These opaque____
Interface Identifiers are formed starting from identifiers different____
than the MAC addresses, and from cryptographically strong material.____
Thus, privacy sensitive information is absent from Interface IDs, and____
it is impossible to calculate the initial value from which the____
Interface ID was calculated.____
__ __
"____
Duplicate and mis ordered text, isn't it?____
__ __
" For this reason, an attacker may realize many____
attacks on privacy.____
"____
Do we attack privacy? Maybe say that privacy is a real concern, and maybe move____
that text to security section?____
__ __
"____
The way Interface Identifiers are used MAY involve risks to privacy,____
as described in Section 5.1.____
"____
Also duplicate____
__ __
Nits____
------____
__ __
"____
IP packets MUST be transmitted over 802.11-OCB media as QoS Data____
frames whose format is specified in IEEE Std 802.11.____
"____
Please add link to the reference____
__ __
" the 802.11 hidden node"____
Do not use 802.11 standalone (multiple occurrences).____
=> "the IEEE Std. 802.11 [ ref ] hidden node", or just "the hidden terminal".____
__ __
BCP 14 text:____
__ __
Suggest to use this text:____
“____
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",____
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and____
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in____
https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14 https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14____
[https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they____
appear in all capitals, as shown here.____
__ __
“____
__ __
All the best____
__ __
Pascal____
__ __
__ __
__ __
_______________________________________________
its mailing list
its@xxxxxxxx <mailto:its@xxxxxxxx>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
