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

Alexandre Petrescu <> Fri, 15 March 2019 10:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C661A1277C9 for <>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 03:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.632
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hKkvHqU0TBkF for <>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 03:14:09 -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 E9DB312762F for <>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 03:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x2FAE7Me011709 for <>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 11:14:07 +0100
Received: from (localhost []) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 076DA2053CA for <>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 11:14:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1991205389 for <>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 11:14:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [] ([]) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x2FAE6PO005683 for <>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 11:14:06 +0100
References: <>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 11:14:06 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.3
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: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 10:14:12 -0000

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 

I thought to suggest 0x8948 (the next after 0x8947) but I dont know.


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