Subject: [ipwave] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-28: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 23:37:46 -0700

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-28: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

First off, this is really interesting stuff.  Thanks for putting it together,
and I'm looking forward to reading more.

I support Roman's and Eric's DISCUSS positions.  I also concur with Alvaro's
comments about references.

The shepherd writeup doesn't say why "Informational" is the right type of RFC
here.  (It becomes obvious quickly, but please still answer the question.  We
often go to the writeup first.)

Section 2 defines "Class-Based Safety Plan", "V2I2D", "VMM", "VND", and "VSP",
but then those terms don't appear anywhere in the document.  (I did find
"class-based automatic safety action plan" later.)  It also defines "OCB" and
"VIP', but then only really uses them as part of reference anchors.  On the
flipside, I would love to see a definition (or reference) for "UAM".