Re: [geonet/its] Internet-wide Geonetworking problem statement and challenges/open issues - sidebar
"Carl Reed" <creed@opengeospatial.org> Sat, 16 November 2013 01:08 UTC
Return-Path: <creed@opengeospatial.org>
X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 331BF11E8128 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:08:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.124
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.124 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KFWYv34QIjg2 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:07:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.opengeospatial.org (scale.ogcinc.net [66.244.86.102]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC5D111E816B for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:06:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.opengeospatial.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B47129443E; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:06:27 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.ogcinc.net
Received: from mail.opengeospatial.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (scale.ogcinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NjXM01CnDTRt; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:06:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail2.standardsmail.org (mail2.standardsmail.org [66.244.86.41]) by mail.opengeospatial.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A0919442E; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:06:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.standardsmail.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8192DFA3676; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:06:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail2.standardsmail.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail2.standardsmail.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id Mf4P4RWWqvY6; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:06:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.standardsmail.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3D65FA36D1; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:06:25 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.standardsmail.org
Received: from mail2.standardsmail.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail2.standardsmail.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id ZVGDJw3gR0At; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:06:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from OfficeHP (c-98-245-174-99.hsd1.co.comcast.net [98.245.174.99]) by mail2.standardsmail.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 22747FA3676; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:06:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <698BDE936AB949A6B8EE5CCE5327C1EB@OfficeHP>
From: Carl Reed <creed@opengeospatial.org>
To: Rex Buddenberg <buddenbergr@gmail.com>, karagian@cs.utwente.nl
References: <FF1A9612A94D5C4A81ED7DE1039AB80F4F3F8AA9@EXMBX23.ad.utwente.nl> <1384545093.17997.61.camel@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <1384545093.17997.61.camel@localhost>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:06:26 -0700
Organization: OGC
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308
Cc: George Percivall <gpercivall@opengeospatial.org>, its@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [geonet/its] Internet-wide Geonetworking problem statement and challenges/open issues - sidebar
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GeoNet BoF discussion list." <its.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/its>
List-Post: <mailto:its@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 01:08:14 -0000
Rex - Other than CAP, OASIS has a Geography Markup Language (GML) Simple Features profile for use in OASIS standards. This profile is currently used in the EDXL suite of OASIS standards for encoding location. The next major revision to CAP may as well reference this GML simple features profile. GML is also used in NIEM - see the OGC project titled Geo4NIEM. A GML application schema is used by the internet community to define what they call geodetic (coordinate) location objects (LO). This LO is used by numerous RFCs. GML is an OGC standard that is also double branded as an ISO international standard. GML consists of a number of packages. A key package is geometry, which the above examples use. The geometry package is based on an abstract model documented in ISO 19107: Spatial Schema. GML is an XML schema which may make GML not appropriate for the form of Geonetworking being considered by this group. However, how one defines geometries should be consistent with ISO 19107. This would make any encoding consistent at a data model level with geographic encodings be used by OASIS, the OGC, the US Government (the DISR), the European Community (INSPIRE), ISO, and other groups in the IETF. Cheers Carl Reed, PhD CTO OGC -----Original Message----- From: Rex Buddenberg Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 12:51 PM To: karagian@cs.utwente.nl Cc: its@ietf.org Subject: Re: [geonet/its] Internet-wide Geonetworking problem statement and challenges/open issues Georgios in the interest of > (1) stimulate discussion, (2) modify the description some comments. On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 05:40 +0000, karagian@cs.utwente.nl wrote: > Hi all, > > > > Below I am giving a brief problem statement description associated > with Internet-wide geonetworking. If this is a 'definition', then you're on the right track. But I'm still foggy on a definition of 'geonetworking'. More below. > > > The goal of this email is to (1) stimulate discussion, (2) modify the > description of the listed challenges/open issues, (3) add new > challenges and (4) modify/add requirements. Roger. > > > > Problem: > > ------------- > > Standardized protocol(s) is/are needed to allow source nodes anywhere > in the Internet to disseminate packets to all/any node(s) with > geographic location awareness within a specified destination area. This is the part I'm having problems swallowing. Are you positing an application layer problem (7) or a network layer problem (3)? It makes a whole lot of difference. First, if you say 'both', then you have too broad a scope for an IETF working group. Although there may be room for a quite different working group on a 'systems' protocol _stack_. This would be fairly novel and I don't know how we'd go about bounding the scope of the problem. (Why I'm sensitive. I've just watched about 15 years of US DoD flailing with a similar-sized scope problem with the Joint Tactical Radio System. The program has now been canceled, after spending $B of the taxpayers money and it has no deliverables. We don't want [geonet/its] to repeat that painful exercise.) Second. If you confine yourself to applications that are 'geography-aware', that limits the scope acceptably but ... we've been here before. Different standards body (OASIS) but Common Alerting Protocol has a mechanism for geographic semantics (and would be messages entirely germane to [its]). From your note it would appear that there is a collective addressing problem here?? Third. If we are after a geography-aware routing information protocol, then what's different from OLSR in MANET? Tying routing to earth geography rather than internet geography is trying to square a circle. Particularly when you account for the facts that LANs and terrestrial WANs have about four orders of magnitude more capacity than radio-WANs. Challenge: Bounding the working group scope by layer is one successful way out of the murk (but may not be what you're after). > > > > Challenges/Open issues: > ... more ... > ------------------------ > > > > o) Mechanisms and/or protocol solutions are needed to ensure that > geographical information is available in the addressing mechanism, > such that packets can be forwarded to a target geographical area. Packets can be frames, datagrams or messages (layers 2, 3 and 7 respectively). This makes the format question a reprise of the scope question above. I'm still lost in the murk, I'm afraid. > > > > o) Mechanisms and protocol solutions are needed to ensure that data > packets generated by source nodes placed anywhere in the Internet are > forwarded over multiple hops by using, where possible, the position of > the destination node(s) and the positions of intermediate nodes for > the routing decisions, instead of using their IP addresses. I'm gagging on the last phrase in this paragraph. It seems to me that you're trying to describe an addressing problem and a multicast addressing problem at that. With a potentially rapidly changing address group membership list that is indeed tied to earth geography. If so, why do you want to not use IP addressing? It was these kinds of expansions that IPv6 was conceived for. > > > --------------------- > > The main requirements to be satisfied on solving the above challenges, > (see also: > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-karagiannis-problem-statement-geonetworking-01.txt): > > > > o) Communication mode:The geoanycast, geounicast and geobroadcast > communication modes MUST be supported by the Internet-wide > geo-networking solution. > The nature of the data you have in mind is largely multicast -- on that I agree. And it's much more so than is 'normal' in the existing internet. (This is true of military, law enforcement, emergency services, ... in general). Without defining 'geoanycast' et al, we can agree that a unicast solution is not adequate. > > > o) Security and privacy: The Internet-wide geo-networking solution > MUST support security objectives for all supported communication > modes. Security objectives particularly include integrity, privacy > and non-repudiation OK so far, excepting some quibbles over definitions. Authenticity is the term I prefer and it's a superset of integrity. Non-repudiation is simply authenticity plus a receipt system. The important question is 'security of WHAT?' > and SHOULD protect the network and transport layer protocol headers. Protection of headers is infrastructure protection. Which may be a valid requirement (I'd tend to think so). But that says nothing about authenticity of the DATA which strikes me as a somewhat more important requirement (imagine some mission critical information systems, like those navigating your car, trying to operate while somebody is inserting bogus data). Another way of saying WHAT is to be protected is to ask what the scope of the security needed is. Layer 2 security measures (like those in WiFi) protect a single segment. Layer 6/7 security measures (S/MIME) protect data end-to-end. What is it that we need? > In addition the Internet-wide geo-networking solution MUST also > protect privacy, i.e. provide confidentiality to personal data such as > relation between node identifier and location. Agreed. It turns out that if you get the authenticity scope and requirements done properly, the confidentiality issues are fairly easily handled (for example, same PKI works for both). > > > > o) Reliable communications: The Internet geo-networking solution > SHOULD support reliable communications with the highest reliability > for messages used for e.g., ITS traffic safety use cases. This rings back to the 'what layer?' question above. All-sudden, for the first time, you have a transport/session layer requirement. First, are you confusing a need for authenticity (imaging bogus traffic safety messages) with a need for reliability (acknowledged delivery)? I think your statement could be interpreted either way and both requirements need to be nailed down. Second. The foundation problem in multicast transport protocols is how one handles a late joiner -- an end system that appears in the group after a session is started. How much history does that late joiner require? The problem does not appear in TCP because of it's unicast nature, but it certainly appears in multicast. Let me illustrate a couple of real world 'today' examples: - weather 'grids' are commonly assembled and then file-transferred to users. There are lots of users out there, including a lot in the potential [its] audience so multicast is a fairly obvious need. And the grids are essentially useless if you don't have the whole file. So a 'late joiner' should cause the system to restart the file transfer. - a 'common operational picture' information system is one where multiple 'plots' show track reports. Think EMS dispatching or military command centers. In these cases, the cast of players is constantly changing -- a new ship joining the piracy-control area for example. The 'session' may be months old ... scrolling back to the start for history is neither necessary nor feasible. But reliable delivery to the new customer is just as important as it is to the existing ones. I've been using the term 'reliable' in the internet usage. Reliable = transport/session reliable. Other groups (like radio manufacturers) mean other things with the term 'reliable' (often simply high Ao). What definition are you using? Probably needs to be explicit. (I've also gotten a full dose of this inexactness; (US) National Public Safety Telecom Council, whose experience is emergency service radio, uses 'reliable' to mean high availability and good coverage (without being explicit). The notion of end-to-end, multi-hop reliability -- what the internet, specifically TCP, provides is an alien concept). The meta question that this statement raises is that you now just added a couple more layers to your scope. Which now looks like you're trying to reinvent the internet ... and I think extending the internet to mobile platforms makes somewhat more sense. Hope this helps true up your problem statement... b _______________________________________________ its mailing list its@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
- [geonet/its] Internet-wide Geonetworking problem … karagian
- Re: [geonet/its] Internet-wide Geonetworking prob… Rex Buddenberg
- Re: [geonet/its] Internet-wide Geonetworking prob… Carl Reed
- Re: [geonet/its] Internet-wide Geonetworking prob… Melinda Shore
- Re: [geonet/its] app-layer or network-layer probl… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [geonet/its] towards a crisper problem statem… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [geonet/its] app-layer or network-layer probl… Nabil Benamar
- Re: [geonet/its] app-layer or network-layer probl… Rex Buddenberg
- Re: [geonet/its] app-layer or network-layer probl… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [geonet/its] app-layer or network-layer probl… Abdussalam Baryun