Subject: draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-29 [was Re: Request for 6man review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-22]

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:49:38 +1200

On 2018-06-14 08:50, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I see that there has been no significant change in the -23 version.
> The two contradictory statements are still present:
>  
>>    The operation of the Neighbor Discovery protocol (ND) over 802.11-OCB
>>    links is different than over 802.11 links.  In OCB, the link layer
>>    does not ensure that all associated members receive all messages,
>>    because there is no association operation.  The operation of ND over
>>    802.11-OCB is not specified in this document.
> 
> ND can't be both "different" and "not specified".
> 
> Also, an IPv6 spec without neighbour discovery is incomplete and seems
> likely to be unusable.

The way this was fixed between version -25 and -26 is a little worrying.
The above paragraph now reads only:

>>    The Neighbor Discovery protocol (ND) [RFC4861] is used over	
>>    802.11-OCB links.

I suppose that means that ND works, but unreliably? Maybe that
should be noted.

However, the *next* paragraph is now broken:

>>    The operation of the Mobile IPv6 protocol over 802.11-OCB links is
>>    different than on other links.  The Movement Detection operation
>>    (section 11.5.1 of [RFC6275]) can not rely on Neighbor Unreachability
>>    Detection operation of the Neighbor Discovery protocol, for the
>>    reason mentioned in the previous paragraph.  Also, the 802.11-OCB
>>    link layer is not a lower layer that can provide an indication that a
>>    link layer handover has occured.  The operation of the Mobile IPv6
>>    protocol over 802.11-OCB is not specified in this document.

"for the reason mentioned in the previous paragraph" now makes no sense.

   Brian

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 09:44:07 +0200

Le 24/09/2018 à 04:49, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
[...]
> I suppose that means that ND works, but unreliably?

I propose an additional note here, if you do not disagree.  The note is 
the following

The reliability of the ND protocol over 802.11-OCB is the reliability of
the delivery of ND multicast messages.  This reliability is the same as
the reliability of delivery of ND multicast messages over 802.11 links
operated with a BSS ID.

> Maybe that should be noted.
>
> 
>>> The operation of the Mobile IPv6 protocol over 802.11-OCB links
>>> is different than on other links.  The Movement Detection
>>> operation (section 11.5.1 of [RFC6275]) can not rely on Neighbor
>>> Unreachability Detection operation of the Neighbor Discovery
>>> protocol, for the reason mentioned in the previous paragraph.
>>> Also, the 802.11-OCB link layer is not a lower layer that can
>>> provide an indication that a link layer handover has occured.
>>> The operation of the Mobile IPv6 protocol over 802.11-OCB is not
>>> specified in this document.
> 

I think you do not disagree that the above note about ND reliability 
clarifies the sense.

Alex

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 08:43:02 +1200

> the reliability of delivery of ND multicast messages over 802.11 links

Seems OK. (Statistically there might be a difference in the reliability,
but it doesn't affect the principle.)
 
> I think you do not disagree that the above note about ND reliability 
Yes, it's fine.

   Brian