[ipwave] FW: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-12

[François Simon <[e-mail]>]

I am not sure this was sent.  I apologize.  Fygs

 

From: François Simon [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2018 9:29 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: FW: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-12

 

Gentlemen,

Mr. Petrescu responded to my email with:

1.      " If we want to go with OBE instead of OBU then we must be ready to defend it in our respective contexts.  Are we ready to?"

Argument: From the FCC is concerned, the term "Roadside Equipment" is not defined. Its purpose was to allocated 75 MHz within the 5.9 GHz spectrum, define a channel plan, and define application priorities (emphasis on safety applications) in the use of the allocated channels (mainly for government entities).  However, The US DOT defines OBE and RSE:

-       On-Board Equipment (OBE) - Term refers to the compliment of equipment located in the vehicle for the purpose of supporting the vehicle side of the applications. It is likely to include the DSRC radios, other radio equipment, message processing, driver interface, and other applications to support the use cases described herein [see Reference]. It is also referred to as the Vehicle ITS Station. When referring to the DSRC radio alone, the correct term is OBU.”

-       Roadside Equipment (RSE) - Term used to describe the compliment of equipment to be located at the roadside; the RSE will prepare and transmit messages to the vehicles and receive messages from the vehicles for the purpose of supporting the V2I applications. This is intended to include the DSRC radio, traffic signal controller where appropriate, interface to the backhaul communications network necessary to support the applications, and support such functions as data security, encryption, buffering, and message processing. When speaking of the DSRC radio alone, the correct term is RSU.”.

Reference: 2015 FHWA Vehicle to Infrastructure Deployment Guidance and Products.

2.      “(I already have a hard time with telling people "802.11p" no longer exists,…”

Argument:  You have made the point (justification) once. In verbal discussion, let the member refer it as they wish. As an editor of IPWAVE documents, mention the rational once in the introduction and insure that “IEEE 802.11p” is replaced by “802.11 OCB” in the remaining text.

3.      “….especially to those who are afraid I want to use LTE to 'kill' 802.11p…”

Argument:  If this is yours and your organization goal, you are not the only one. This has been debated for few years already.  This is not a technical argument, therefore I will not address it. 

4.      “…and now to tell them to use "OBE" instead of "OBU" just in order to use IP seems like an additional effort).”

Argument:  I am not suggesting to do a “global” change of “OBU / RSU” with “OBE / RSE”.  “Unit” and “Equipment” have their own context.  However, “Unit” is the radio included in “Equipment” and by itself does not make a system enabling the transportation of IP as defined by IETF.  I am suggesting the use of OBU/OBE and RSU/RSE within their appropriate context.

5.      “All the OBUs I use do run IP.”

Argument: It depends of your definition of “run”. The OBU (radio) does nothing with IP (or any other network protocols). The OBU exchange MAC protocol data units (MPDU) with its peer(s) via a wireless media channel.  The Internet Protocol (IP) is the payload  of the MPDU.

6.      “Can FCC change their definition to include a reference to this IP draft?:”

Argument: NO.  FCC is an independent agency of the US government. For some of you who remember the PTTs in Europe, it is somewhat similar; two to three years to fulfill a simple residence telephone request; should I say more? 😉 

I hope this help somewhat but do remember this comments apply to US only.  If you have any comments and/or questions, let me know.

Sincerely,

Francois Simon

Lojik Technologies

-----Original Message-----
From: François Simon [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2018 2:14 PM
To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
Subject: FW: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-12

-----Original Message-----

From: Alexandre Petrescu [ <mailto:[e-mail]> mailto:[e-mail]] 

Sent: Friday, February 02, 2018 9:30 AM

To: François Simon <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >

Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 

Subject: Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-12

 

Le 02/02/2018 à 11:23, François Simon a écrit :

> Mr. Petrescu,

> 

> Let's try one more time to clarify the FCC DSRC (in US only) issue.

> 

> *FCC – DSRC*

> 

> *Background:***

> 

> **

> 

> -** The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Dedicated Short 

> Range Communication (DSRC) is defined in the Code of Federal 

> Regulations (CFR)

> 47 mainly Parts 90 and 95. The last update is dated October 1st, 2010;

> 

> -This includes the ASTM E 2213-03 standard: “Standard Specification for 

> Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between Roadside and 

> Vehicle Systems — 5 GHz Band Dedicated Short Range Communications 

> (DSRC) Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) 

> Specifications”; approved July 10, 2003. The standard is derived from 

> IEEE 802.11a and, in most part, is equivalent to IEEE 802.11 OCB. To 

> date, the DSRC CFRs do not specify IEEE 802.11 OCB.

> 

> -The related CFRs state that DSRC shall comply with the ASTM E 2213-03.

> 

> *Overview of DSRC functions:***

> 

> **

> 

> The functions listed in DSRC related CFRs are, in general, specified 

> in the ASTM E 2213-03 and IEEE 802.11 OCB:

> 

> -MAC service definition, frame format, and procedures;

> 

> -PHY Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM);

> 

> -PHY Service Data Unit format and modulations (data rates):

> 

> -5.9 GHz band allocated channels, frequency, max. EIRP, and spectrum 

> mask;

> 

> -Individual Channel use: Safety applications, non-safety applications, 

> and priorities.

> 

> *Protocols***

> 

> **

> 

> DSRC being uniquely a MAC and PHY communications service, there here 

> no restriction on Transport and Network protocols that can be used 

> (except for the LCC specified by reference in IEEE 802.11 OCB). In the 

> US, the WAVE standards (IEEE 1609 series) specify these protocols when 

> using DSRC as the communication service.

> 

> *OBU / RSU***

> 

> **

> 

> The CFR (FCC) definitions are:

> 

> /Roadside unit (RSU). A Roadside Unit is a DSRC transceiver that is 

> mounted along a road or pedestrian passageway. An RSU may also be 

> mounted on a vehicle or is hand carried, but it may only operate when 

> the vehicle or hand- carried unit is stationary. Furthermore, an RSU 

> operating under this part is restricted to the location where it is 

> licensed to operate. However, portable or hand-held RSUs are permitted 

> to operate where they do not interfere with a site-licensed operation. 

> A RSU broadcasts data to OBUs or exchanges data with OBUs in its 

> communications zone. An RSU also provides channel assignments and 

> operating instructions to OBUs in its communications zone, when

> required./- [CFR 90.7 - Definitions] - Revised as October 2010.

> 

> /On-Board unit (OBU). An On-Board Unit is a DSRCS transceiver that is 

> normally mounted in or on a vehicle, or which in some instances may be 

> a portable unit. An OBU can be operational while a vehicle or person 

> is either mobile or stationary. The OBUs receive and contend for time 

> to transmit on one or more radio frequency (RF) channels. Except where 

> specifically excluded, OBU operation is permitted wherever vehicle 

> operation or human passage is permitted. The OBUs mounted in vehicles 

> are licensed by rule under part 95 of this chapter and communicate 

> with Roadside Units (RSUs) and other OBUs. Portable OBUs are also 

> licensed by rule under part 95 of this chapter. OBU operations in the 

> Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (UNII) Bands follow the 

> rules in those bands./- [CFR 90.7 - Definitions] - October 2010

> 

> *IPWAVE Issue***

> 

> **

> 

> /“The problem with the FCC definition of OBU is that it has no 

> relationship to IP.  Worse, that FCC definition has no indication that 

> it MAY use IP somehow.  And here we say that all OBUs must use IP.  Do 

> you see what I mean?”///

> 

> //

> 

> Correct; the OBU has no relationship with IP and is not intended to. 

> IP is a network protocol.  If an On-Board Unit (OBU) device is 

> required to exchange IP, it needs to be dealt in protocol(s) and/or 

> Management in higher layers similar to WAVE within the On-Board Equipment (OBE) .

> 

> /“Do you think FCC will mind if we use the term OBU in this draft to 

> mean something else?  I, and a colleague, think that FCC would not 

> mind.”///

> 

> //

> 

> Depending of the reader. If one is familiar with DSRC, OBU and RSU as 

> defined by FCC will come in mind. As far as I know, “OBU” and “RSU” 

> are not registered and could be used for other definitions (something 

> like

> “ATM”: Asynchronous Transfer Mode and Automatic Teller Machine😊). My 

> suggestion to the IPWAVE team is to use “OBE and RSE”.

> 

> This is my personal view as I donot represent any involved interest.  

> If any one has questions, let me know.

If we want to go with OBE instead of OBU then we must be ready to defend it in our respective contexts.  Are we ready to?

(I already have a hard time with telling people "802.11p" no longer exists, especially to those who are afraid I want to use LTE to 'kill' 

802.11p; and now to tell them to use "OBE" instead of "OBU" just in order to use IP seems like an additional effort).

All the OBUs I use do run IP.

Can FCC change their definition to include a reference to this IP draft?

Alex

> 

> Francois Simon

> 

> Lojik Technologies

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> 

> From: its [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alexandre 

> Petrescu

> 

> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 10:08 AM

> 

> To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 

> 

> Subject: Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of

> draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-12

> 

> 

> 

> Le 29/01/2018 à 15:52, François Simon a écrit :

> 

>> My comments arewithin the text*[Fygs.......]*.

> 

> [...]

> 

>> In the terminology section, the OBU term is mentioned to be defined

> 

>> outside the IETF. This is fine, but we have to provide a reference.

> 

>> And even with that, it would not harm to include some short 

>> definition

> 

>> to provide context. The RSU term is also defined outside the IETF and

> 

>> there is quite a lot of text provided (I think the relevant part is

> 

>> the last sentence, the one starting with "The difference between..."). 

> 

>> Both terms should be handled in the same way.

> 

>> 

> 

>> *[Fygs: The**definitions**was issued by the FCC 20 years ago.  I have

> 

>> already provided that information**and references multiple

> 

>> times.]***

> 

> The problem with the FCC definition of OBU is that it has no 

> relationship to IP.  Worse, that FCC definition has no indication that 

> it MAY use IP somehow.  And here we say that all OBUs must use IP.  Do 

> you see what I mean?

> 

> Do you think FCC will mind if we use the term OBU in this draft to 

> mean something else?  I, and a colleague, think that FCC would not mind.

> 

> Alex

> 

> _______________________________________________

> 

> its mailing list

> 

> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 

> 

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

>