Re: [its] charter ITS - proposed work items

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 19/04/2016 00:51, Jong-Hyouk Lee a écrit :
> Alex, -- Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and
> /dev/random Protocol Engineering Lab., Sangmyung University
>
> #email: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> #webpage:
> https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon
>
>> On Apr 19, 2016, at 2:12 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
>> <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 18/04/2016 17:56, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) a écrit :
>>> Hi Jong-Hyouk,
>>>
>>>> I officially request that we should have a solution for IP
>>>> prefix
>>> exchanges as a work item.
>>>
>>> This is one specific approach. The description for the work item
>>> can be bit more generic.
>>
>> Thanks, but I would need a title for it.
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> "Solution for 1-hop IP V2V"?
>>
>> "Solution to establish a 1-hop IP path between nearby moving
>> networks or between nearby moving networks and an immediate fixed
>> network"
>>
>> "Solution for Moving/Fixed Network Discovery and 1-hop Path
>> Establishment"?
>>
>> "Solution for end-to-end path establishment in a star topology with
>> 1-hop fragile core and n-hop stable edges”?
>
> We may refer the ISO/TC204 liaison link:
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-its-7.pdf
>
> As presented at the slide #13 above: ISO/TC204 calls "Direct
> communication between ITS stations”

What is an "ITS Station"?  Can't we use "Mobile Router" instead?

Alex

> Its need has been well presented and as expressed at the slides,
> ISO/TC204 says…"Generically applicable IETF standard is sought on
> this otherwise ISO will develop its own” Thierry would have a better
> idea. Let me him in this loop.
>
> Note that the request of the development of a solution for direct
> communication between ITS stations has a long history and as you may
>  know because of this request the mnpp protocol
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jhlee-mext-mnpp-00) was developed
> as a result of FP7 EU project, Geonet (design and development of
> Geoneworking over IPv6). At that time, there was no place to make it
> as RFC at the IETF due to not matured ITS activities at the IETF.
>
> Cheers.
>
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sri
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Jong-Hyouk Lee <[e-mail]
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>> Date:
>>> Monday, April 18, 2016 at 8:22 AM To: Sri Gundavelli
>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> Cc: Alexandre Petrescu
>>> <[e-mail]
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>> Subject: Re: [its]
>>> charter ITS - proposed work items
>>>
>>> Hi Sri,
>>>
>>> Just one comment regarding IP prefix exchanges. Plz see inline.
>>> -- Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and
>>> /dev/random Protocol Engineering Lab., Sangmyung University
>>>
>>> #email: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> #webpage:
>>> https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon
>>>
>>>> On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:51 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
>>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Alex – Inline ..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To: Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> Cc: "[e-mail]
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>> Subject: Re: [its]
>>>> charter ITS - proposed work items
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ITSers, We work on a more rigorous ITS charter text. Now we
>>>> propose four work items: 1. "Problem statement for IP in V2V
>>>> and V2I" including "IP addressing architecture for V2V and V2I"
>>>> and including "Gap Analysis: IP protocols suited and gaps" and
>>>> including "Use-cases for IP in V2V and V2I moving network to
>>>> nearby moving or fixed network" [Sri] Agree. This is a good
>>>> starting point. Use-Cases document is needed. On the Gap
>>>> Analysis document, it should be stated as how the gaps are
>>>> captured and in relation to what technology. Is it NEMO, MANET,
>>>> some other protocols ?
>>>>
>>>> 2. "Threat Analysis for IP prefix exchanges in V2V and V2I
>>>> context" [Sri] If my starting point is #1, not sure how to read
>>>> this ? Prefix exchanges appears more like a solution. In MANET
>>>> there is exchange of prefixes, in NEMO we don’t inject those
>>>> prefixes and so I do not know if this work item is valid at
>>>> this time.
>>>
>>> You are right. That is a missing part. We need to have a solution
>>> for "IP prefix exchanges in V2V and V2I” The need of IP prefix
>>> exchanges is clear and well presented in PS documents for IP in
>>> V2V and V2I. Then, there are 2 documents already existing as
>>> below:
>>>
>>> 1.
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-00
>>>
>>>
2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jhlee-mext-mnpp-00
>>>
>>> The above 2 documents are the early effort to establish IP
>>> direction communications between vehicles and also between a
>>> vehicle and a road side unit.
>>>
>>> I officially request that we should have a solution for IP
>>> prefix exchanges as a work item.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>>>
>>>> 3. "IP over DSRC (802.11-OCB)" typical IP-over-foo
>>>> document[*], including connectivity in fast and asymmetric
>>>> conditions, coverage area vs speed diagrams, below-IP
>>>> congestion management.
>>>>
>>>> 4. "List of papers and _products_ using IP in V2V and V2I"
>>>> [Sri] Not clear what the deliverable is.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think? Please respond by next Monday, April 18th.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ its mailing
>>>> list [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>>
>