Subject: [ipwave] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-14.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 11:17:02 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG of the IETF.

        Title           : IPv6 Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE): Problem Statement and Use Cases
        Author          : Jaehoon Paul Jeong (editor)
	Filename        : draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-14.txt
	Pages           : 32
	Date            : 2020-03-09

Abstract:
   This document discusses the problem statement and use cases of
   IPv6-based vehicular networking for Intelligent Transportation
   Systems (ITS).  The main scenarios of vehicular communications are
   vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and
   vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications.  First, this document
   explains use cases using V2V, V2I, and V2X networking.  Next, it
   makes a problem statement about key aspects in IPv6-based vehicular
   networking, such as IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, Mobility Management, and
   Security & Privacy.  For each key aspect, this document specifies
   requirements for IPv6-based vehicular networking.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-14
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-14

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-14

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 15:46:00 -0400

Paul believes that he has addressed all comments in revision:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-14 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-14> 

I think we need to let at least five reviewers.  Could you do a review of this revision?  Please respond to the WG mail list.

Thanks,
  Russ

> On Mar 9, 2020, at 2:17 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

---

From: 선경재 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 10:12:31 +0900

Hi Russ,

I want to review this draft.

Thanks,

KJ

Kyoungjae Sun / K. J. SUN (Ph. D. Student)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distributed Computing & Network laboratory (DCN Lab)
School of Electronic Engineering, Soongsil Univ.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email [email-masked]

> 2020. 3. 10. 오전 4:46, Russ Housley <[email-masked]> 작성:
> 
>> On Mar 9, 2020, at 2:17 PM, [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking/>
>>

---

From: 선경재 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:48:11 +0900

Hi, Paul

I reviewed your revised draft. Check my comments below.

1) In "2. Terminology", '[RFC7429]' was not hyperlinked. it is the
only reference which is not hyperlinked.

2) In 3.1, position of paragraph starting with "The existing IPv6
protocol does not.." may not suitable. I suggest to move this
paragraph in front of last paragraph. For the same reason, similar
paragraphs in 3.2 and 3.3 are suggested to move position.

3) In 3.2, when "TCC" is written firstly, there is no explanation for
this abbreviation.

4) In 3.3, you explained about V2I2V use case. Can we say that the
scenario you mentioned in the third paragraph is correct to define
'IP-RSU relaying'? If an edge computing is running and processing
between vehicle and pedestrian, it seems to be two separated V2I
communications between edge and two nodes.

5) I suggest to move figure 1 under the chapter 4 because this figure
was explained in chapter 4.1. For the same reason, Figure 2 can be
placed under the chapter 4.2, and Figure 3 under the chapter 4.3.

6) In fifth paragraph of 4.1, I think that "which are part of a
Vehicular Cloud." is not necessary. Also, "which is a controller for
the mobility management of vehicles." is not necessary because it
seems to duplicate meaning for previous sentence.

7) In the first paragraph of 4.1, "However, some components..." is
suggested to change in the way like "These components are not
mandatory and there can be deployed in various ways".

8) Second paragraph 4.1 seems to be specified PMIPv6 as a default
mobility management protocol. If not, I suggest this paragraph to
modify or remove.

9) In 4.1, SDN concept pops up in sudden and it is used for mobility
management. If you want to add CP/DP separation concept for mobility
management, I think that CP/DP separation definition and explanation
which is defined in the DMM WG will be better. In
"draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp", they defined Forwarding Policy
Configuration (FPC) architecture which adapts CP/DP separation. I
think this document can be helpful.

Best Regards,

KJ.

====================================================================

선경재 / KJ Sun

연구원 / 인터넷인프라시스템 기술연구센터

Researcher / Internet Infrastructure System Technology Research Center

Office : +82-2-820-0841    Phone : +82-10-3643-5627

Email : [email-masked]

====================================================================

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 13:18:17 +0100

> only reference which is not hyperlinked.

I am wondering why RFC7429 is not hyperlinked.

The xml source did use <xref target="RFC7429"/> just like it used xref 
for other links, like <xref target="RFC7333"/>.

It might be an xml2rfc error?  Or not.

> 3) In 3.2, when "TCC" is written firstly, there is no explanation for

With respect to this term TCC - Traffic Control Center.

There is also the term TMC - Traffic Management Center.  FOr my part, I 
use this a lot in some related documents.

I dont know which is right.

Alex

---

From: Jung-Soo Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 20:20:10 +0900

Hi All,

I'm volunteer for reviewing.
I hope giving a good response in the IPv6 networking and security aspects.

Best Regards,
JungSoo

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 4:46 AM Russ Housley <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think we need to let at least five reviewers.  Could you do a review of
> this revision?  Please respond to the WG mail list.
>
> Thanks,
>   Russ
>
>
>        Title           : IPv6 Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments
> (IPWAVE): Problem Statement and Use Cases

-- 
Dr. JungSoo PARK
-----------------
Smart Infra Standardization Team
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), Korea
Tel:+82-42-860-6514, Fax:861-5404
MSN: [email-masked], E-mail : [email-masked]