Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 RSU term

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Sun, 12 February 2017 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
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 20390129998 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:45:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.353
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.353 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aTk-EWdF3uiM for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:45:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99C6E12999D for <its@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:45:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.4) with ESMTP id v1CHjMut026631; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:45:22 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A1FF2025BD; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:45:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 688DD200F6C; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:45:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [132.166.84.20] ([132.166.84.20]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v1CHjL27018182; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:45:21 +0100
To: dickroy@alum.mit.edu, 'Jérôme Härri' <jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr>, 'Michelle Wetterwald' <mlwetterwald@gmail.com>
References: <148052970170.9607.12043916621198119260.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <d3cdd725-160f-b3cc-540b-00bbcec797c7@cea.fr> <CAF5de8t4TjMK5uLc4XK6O7WAsrd6LPCM29=UoNNg7VZS+6VVYQ@mail.gmail.com> <9fe84c68-897b-d5e3-ec5f-ba4e5af62f78@gmail.com> <011901d28393$c03d4e00$40b7ea00$@eurecom.fr> <6DDB412054504B25BC86AFFA43BDE578@SRA6>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6b7f125c-ce09-483d-5716-24715d1367e7@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:44:50 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6DDB412054504B25BC86AFFA43BDE578@SRA6>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/9ccs6sPorlk6bfVukX4VAijggFY>
Cc: its@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 RSU term
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPWAVE - IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG at IETF <its.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 17:45:30 -0000

Richard,

What is that definition in 21217?  Can you copy paste it here so we can 
consider it please?

Alex

Le 11/02/2017 à 05:55, Dick Roy a écrit :
> Definitions of terms depend on to whom you are talking.  I suggest sticking
> with the internationally accepted (except in the US) terminology in ISO
> 21217.  You will find definitions for everything you need concisely defined
> therein.
>
> Cheers,
>
> RR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jérôme Härri [mailto:jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr]
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 3:50 AM
> To: 'Alexandre Petrescu'; 'Michelle Wetterwald'
> Cc: its@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 RSU term
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> It could actually be two different terms, depending of what we want to say
> in the draft. The RSU is no longer a pure C-ITS name, as even LTE-V2X
> adopted the LTE-UE operating in RSU mode for LTE-V2V communications (meaning
> you do not need to be a eNB/base station to be a RSU).
> I would tend to think that the RSU is more a function/service than an actual
> technology...but as I think the debate could be complex and suggest to
> follow Michelle suggestion to keep the RSU as a 'bigger' entity, and if you
> need it, a RSR as a potential sub-set of a RSU. As Michelle said, a RSU is
> not a router  by default...
>
> BR,
>
> Jérôme
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: its [mailto:its-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
> Sent: Friday 10 February 2017 12:37
> To: Michelle Wetterwald
> Cc: its@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 RSU term
>
> Hi Michelle,
>
> Thank you for the suggestion.
>
> But making RSR a component of RSU is different than making RSU a component
> of RSR, right?
>
> Despite the widespread belief that RSU would have something to do with IP
> and Internet, rarely if ever was there an RSU connected to Internet that
> forwarded IP packets - most RSUs are disconnected from the Internet (the
> supposedly 'slaves' at FHWA) and the ones that are connected to the Internet
> (supposedly the 'masters' at FHWA) are so only in order to be SNMP-managed
> remotely, but not to forward.
>
> If we know of some RSU which has this 'forwarding' flag set to 1, then we
> should talk about it, and call it a Router.
>
> The "ITS station" term is not a term at IETF.  We could re-use the term "ITS
> station", but I would like to know whether "ITS Station" is a Router or a
> Host?
>
> Yours,
>
> Alex
>
> Le 10/02/2017 à 12:18, Michelle Wetterwald a écrit :
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> Actually, an RSU is generally more than an RSR as it is an ITS station
>> per se and may contain upper (e.g. service or even
>> application) layers. I suggest to keep the definition of RSU in the
>> text, as it is a widely used term, but clarify that an RSR could be
>> one of the components of an RSU.
>>
>> Best regards, Michelle
>>
>> 2017-02-10 11:34 GMT+01:00 Alexandre Petrescu
>> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com
>> <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>>:
>>
>> draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 RSU term
>>
>> Hello IPWAVErs,
>>
>> We received multiple comments about the RSU term.  The strongest issue
>> is that apparently there are conflicts between our assumption of RSU
>> to be a router and FHWA(?) thinking RSU is more like an interface to a
>> router, or something like a master-RSU controlling
>> (slave?) RSUs. Unless FHWA tells us they agree RSU is a router, I will
>> modify the following:
>>
>> Old:
>>
>> 2.  Terminology
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> RSU: Road Side Unit.
>>
>>
>> New:
>>
>> RSR: Road Side Router; an IP router equipped with, or connected to, at
>> least one interface that is 802.11 and that is an interface that
>> operates in OCB mode.
>>
>>
>> and substitute RSR for RSU throughout.
>>
>> This old 'RSU' term, now RSR, is absolutely needed in the draft when
>> discussing IP handovers and Mobile IP.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ its mailing list
>> its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Michelle Wetterwald michelle.wetterwald@gmail.com
>> <mailto:michelle.wetterwald@gmail.com>
>
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> its@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>
>
>
>