Re: [ipwave] LTE-V2X term in Problem Statement document

[Jérôme Härri <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex, All,

 

Good point…we indeed really need to avoid multiple acronyms.

 

One aspect worth mentioning is that there is no ‘official’ naming for what we try to indicate in 3GPP. LTE_V2X is just a WI name, which is an internal denomination (a bit when you are in a IEEE PAR and you have a working title, NGV instead of now 11BD). Of course, that is as far the only ‘one-term’ does it all to indicate this. But I would also suggest not to simply use this term, as it implies many unclear aspects:

1)      There are other work items on V2X, which actually do not use the ‘_’, e.g. eV2X, eV2XARC, V2XIMP etc..

2)      This WI no longer exist per say (as created in 2016)..and never produced a specific standard (by itself…, which would have taken the name)….it has been split in various other WIs, like LTE_V2X-Core, LTE_V2X-Perf, etc…

3)      V2X Slidelink

4)      V2X Uu (V2X Uu is not per say part of the WI LTE_V2X), but I suspect that IETF will include this as well.

5)      V2X Direct Communication (different from V2X Discovery)

6)      3GPP generally defines”V2X Services”…

7)      If we refer to horizontal communication, Sidelink is most likely used…but transparently includes D2D and V2X as these are configuration of the former. 

8)      5GAA uses C-V2X (taken from a US proposal, as the US do not use the term LTE, and prefer Cellular ‘whatever’

9)      ETSI/C2C uses LTE-V2X (here, as there was nothing to actually refer to…)

10)   Even found names such as LTE-V, or LTE short range (LTE Sidelink), LTE long range (LTE Uu)

 

So, my point is: I do not think there is one ‘term’…so, there should be a  decision at IETF to commonly use one, whatever it is, but having a section describing that it refers to (and linking to all other namings). 

Considering that 3GPP does not really has one (or only one), let’s review what is there:

·         SAE uses  (Cellular V2X, would suggest to avoid this, as this is generally not accepted in EU norms…as LTE V2X mode 4 is far from being ‘cellular’),  

·         ISO CALM uses LTE-V2X (ISO/FDIS 17515-3 Intelligent transport systems -- Evolved-universal terrestrial radio access network -- Part 3: LTE-V2X, https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:17515:-3:dis:ed-1:v1:en) 

·         ETSI uses LTE-V2X (future EN (European Norm) 304 613, or the publicly available TS 103 613)…as the term has been used for much more time that IETF…, 

·         IEEE 1609.3 – I could not find a reference…but they might in the update cycle..

 

So, to be coherent between standards (ETSI, IEEE, SAE and ISO, considering we cannot refer to a standard in 3GPP having a single simple acronym, as far as I know) and common literature. I would suggest to use LTE-V2X as general term, but if LTE_V2X is selected, that is OK as well…we should just explain why and cycle other terms to avoid confusion…

 

My two cents,


BR,

 

Jérôme

 

 

 

From: its [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
Sent: Wednesday 17 April 2019 13:18
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [ipwave] LTE-V2X term in Problem Statement document

 

Hi IPWAVErs,

The IPWAVE Problem Statement document uses the term 'LTE-V2X' at one point. ("e.g., IEEE 802.11-OCB and LTE-V2X")

I would like to suggest to make a careful definition of the term 'LTE-V2X'.

One would expect the term 'LTE-V2X' to be defined precisely at 3GPP or similar.  But that is not the case.  The 3GPP document that is closest to this term is RP-161298, publicly available, defines the term 'LTE_V2X' (remark underscore '_', instead of dash '-').

I suggest the addition of the following term in the Problem Statement draft:

LTE-V2X: the transmission of ETSI CAM and DENM messages over IP over a cellular link such as 3G, 4G and successors.

Alex