Re: [ipwave] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I agree Nabil.

Several times we presented this draft. Each time we agreed that ND may have an issue, admit it in text in the IP-OCB document, but do not solve it in this document. That is what the current version of the draft admit there may be some ND issues, but do not solve it.

Even during the last presentation in Prague we said that.

Alex

Le 12/04/2019 à 16:44, NABIL BENAMAR a écrit :
I agree with you Sri!

It's worth noting that during the 2 last IETF meetings, we got the impression that the draft needs just few adjustments. I think that the ND issues should be tackled in a seperated document.

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 15:39 Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgundave@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:sgundave@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

    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@xxxxxxxx>
        *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





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux