Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-networking-survey?

[[e-mail]]

Rex,

A few more questions, if I may:


> IP.  The telemetering of data to the hospital is an example of at least
> a three-segment internetwork.  Terrestrial WAN, radio-WAN and LANs.  In
> my book that makes a pretty good case for IP.  (The emergency services
> comms folks tend to view the 'backhaul', the terrestrial WAN, as an
> afterthought.)


Those of us from the Internet infrastructure world are used to being an afterthought.  Except at the IETF. ;-)

I think that we can easily stipulate IP connectivity as a requirement, otherwise we wouldn’t be here, so I’m interested in more details.

> Different.  Volatile topology and security.  


We’ve dealt with volatile last-hop topology before (e.g., Wi-Fi).  What’s different here? Does your use case require multiple radio hops? 

On the security front, we won’t be fixing the security infrastructure of the entire Internet here, so there’s a limit to what we can do.  What do you see as the requirements that come out of your use case and how do existing IP security mechanisms align with or fail to meet those requirements?

Tony