Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-46

Request Review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 52)
Type Last Call Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2019-06-26
Requested 2019-06-12
Authors Nabil Benamar , Jerome Haerri , Jong-Hyouk Lee , Thierry Ernst , Thierry Ernst
I-D last updated 2019-06-27
Completed reviews Intdir Early review of -34 by Pascal Thubert (diff)
Iotdir Early review of -34 by Pascal Thubert (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -46 by Roni Even (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -46 by Joerg Ott (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -47 by Roni Even (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joerg Ott
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb by Transport Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 46 (document currently at 52)
Result On the Right Track
Completed 2019-06-27
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC if you reply to or forward this review.

The draft discusses the most basic operation of IPv6 over IEEE 802.11-OCB,
i.e., a flavour of ad-hoc networks specifically for vehicular connectivity (formerly
 known as IEEE 802.11p). The document mainly covers question of mapping IPv6
packets to the MAC layer frames, discusses aspects of address assignment and
subnets, and neighbour discovery. The core document is rather short but has
extensive appendices.

There are no clear transport issues in this document. The main relevant aspect would
be MTU size, which is in line with standard IPv6. But the document discusses (section 4.2)
that all IPv6 packets should be mapped to the same class of service. So, there is no 
service differentiation expected (diffserv, for example)?

However, I do not consider the document to be really ready because of structure
and writing clarity. This is surprising for version -46! There is a need for improvement
to make the document properly understandable by the reader. I am actually wondering
why this document is sent out for last call given the state the text is in.

Detailed comments:

In several places, the text reminds of patent jargon. Should I worry? There doesn't appear
to be any IPR disclosure. 

p5, 1st line: packet->packets

The use of RFC 2026 language needs improvement.

sect. 4.4: transition time is not defined
"no generic meaning" -- means what?
This section is confusing. Please describe a concrete sequence of actions

sect. 4.5: external references for standards are surely the right way. But
the reader may benefit from some informal self-contained description.

sect. 4.5.2: anythings needs to be said about multicast reception?

sect 4.6: Clarify "A subnet may be formed over 802.11-OCB interfaces of
vehicles that are in close range (not by their in-vehicle interfaces)." further.

sect. 5: explain briefly how certificates are supposed to work with variable addresses.

App. E: why would high mobility affect encapsulation"?

App. G: Ok to show complete packet formats. But then maybe also give specific examples?
And why do you describe this as capturing what is received rather than how to construct
something to sent out?

App. I: reliable multicast used incorrectly

Nits: "mode.A", "; The", "on another hand", "At application layer"
"attacker can therefore just sit in the near range of vehicles"
"perform attacks without needing to physically break any wall."
"embarking an"
"outdoors public environments"
"attacker sniffers"
"indoor settings"
"eventual conflicts"
expand all acronyms, also in the appendices

Why has sect. 5.3 bullets?