Re: [ieee-ietf-coord] Coordination Gathering Needed in Prague?

Alexandru Petrescu <> Thu, 04 April 2019 08:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A804C120059 for <>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 01:55:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.632
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OhaeyWjwHex4 for <>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 01:55:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1216B1200F6 for <>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 01:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x348thRX002853; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 10:55:43 +0200
Received: from (localhost []) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 8EC16203159; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 10:55:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E0E9203174; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 10:55:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x348thew017571; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 10:55:43 +0200
To: Donald Eastlake <>
Cc:, Peter Yee <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Alexandru Petrescu <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 10:55:43 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ieee-ietf-coord] Coordination Gathering Needed in Prague?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Management-level discussions between IEEE and IETF on topics of interest to both SDOs <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 08:55:50 -0000

I propose I use 0xFFFF for now for CAMs over empty BTP and GeoNetworking.

I suppose 0xffff is not used, as it is the last one.

I can not plan for budget for it at this time, but I need to use it in 
the street.  I can provide the location if needed.

I want to thank you for the clarification.

The blocking point to further exploring is the apparent necessity of 
Registration Fee of cca 3k usd.  It is not the amount, but it is the 
potential risk of temporary  use.  It's hard to pay money just for a few 
months of use.  I dont know whether it will be succesful any further to 
warrant spending, for now.


Le 15/03/2019 à 16:59, Donald Eastlake a écrit :
> Of course the IEEE Registration Authority is the authoritative source
> for Ethertype assignment information. See
> It is
> somewhat of a historic accident that there is an informational listing
> of historic and IETF relevant Ethertypes on the IANA web
> pages...Thanks,Donald=============================== Donald E.
> Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport,
> FL 33896 USA
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 11:29 AM Peter Yee <> wrote:
>> Ethertype 0x8948 is already assigned (although not listed on the IANA's page for Ethertypes, which is not the definitive listing of Ethertypes).  If you have a need for an Ethertype, you should reference RFC 7042 (Section 3) and the IANA's IEEE 802 Numbers page (  for more information.  Donald Eastlake (primary) and Juan Carlos Zuniga (secondary) are the IANA-designated experts for Ethertypes.
>>                  -Peter
>> On 3/15/19, 3:14 AM, "ieee-ietf-coord on behalf of Alexandre Petrescu" < on behalf of> wrote:
>> One of my collaborators (RSU manufacturer) asked me in private which
>> EtherType to use  other than the allocated 0x8947 for GeoNetworking, on
>> which to send CAM messages from car to Road-Side Units that use empty
>> GeoNetworking and BTP headers.
>> These are not IP messages, but are transmitted on IEEE 802.11 OCB.  They
>> do contain ETSI GeoNetworking headers but these headers are empty
>> because we dont trust their necessity.
>> We agreed to put such CAMs with empty GeoNetowrking headers present both
>> on cars and on Road-Side Units, we agreed to put at a particular 5.9GHz
>> channel, but we explore which EtherType to use.
>> Is there some 'trial' EtherType for vehicles, which would not disturb
>> others, be future proof, be available immediately (in the following
>> months).
>> I thought to suggest 0x8948 (the next after 0x8947) but I dont know.
>> Alex
>> Le 20/02/2019 à 20:53, Russ Housley a écrit :
>>> During the coordination call today, no one had a topic that needed a gathering in Prague.  Since some of you could not make the call, we wanted to ask the list before deciding that there was not a reason to get together.  If you know of a topic, please speak now.
>>> Russ
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ieee-ietf-coord mailing list