Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan

[Chris Shen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex,

Thank you for your provided information.

I scanned the FCC document you shared.
I believe that the new change is to divide the previous ITS spectrum into
two parts:

   - *5.850GHz - 5.895GHz:* *Unlicensed band (5MHz + 40MHz)*
   - *5.895GHz - 5.925GHz:* *ITS band (30MHz, B47)*, *requiring to use
   C-V2X (5G-V2X) at the end of this transition.*

Two weeks ago, in the CCNC 2021, one of the keynote speakers from Qualcomm
shared some information about this latest transition.
I share one of the slides in the keynote related to this transition here.
[image: ITS-band-transition-202101.png]

The whole slides can be found here:
https://whova.com/xems/whova_backend/get_event_s3_file_api/?eventkey=d292f69137f1ea29bd6dd11e18771c3d6a6d97e93ef7a2ded585ac68b40d5e59&event_id=iccnc_202101&file_url=https://whova.com/xems/whova_backend/get_event_s3_file_api/?event_id=iccnc_202101&eventkey=d292f69137f1ea29bd6dd11e18771c3d6a6d97e93ef7a2ded585ac68b40d5e59&file_url=https://d1keuthy5s86c8.cloudfront.net/static/ems/upload/files/eevcg_Connected_Car_CCNC_2021_Lansford_Keynote.pdf

Thanks!
Chris


On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 2:43 AM Alexandre Petrescu <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> I was pointed in private that a new plan is there
>
> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-modernizes-59-ghz-band-improve-wi-fi-and-automotive-safety-0
>
> My quick read tells me that is potentially a significant change in
> spectrum use.
>
> Le 25/01/2021 à 17:58, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
> > Hi, IPWAVErs,
> >
> > Do you know what is the result of this plan of allocating 5.9GHz bands
> > for C-V2X?
> >
> > Have I missed a follow up of it?
> >
> > https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-promote-innovation-59-ghz-band-0
> >
> > Alex
> >
> >
> > Le 10/07/2020 à 14:42, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I would like to know wheher FCC advanced well while seeking to promote
> >> innovation in the 5.9GHz band?
> >>
> >> In particular, is now IPv6 allowed to run on the control channel
> >> 5895-5905MHz on 802.11 in OCB mode?
> >>
> >> The URL to the FCC document stating that seeking of promotion of
> >> innovation is this, but I cant figure out a conclusion of it(?)
> >> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-promote-innovation-59-ghz-band-0
> >>
> >> Alex
> >>
> >> Le 24/01/2020 à 15:11, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
> >>> for information, the filing is now visible at
> >>> https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10115292918548
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Le 15/01/2020 à 21:34, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
> >>>> I submitted the comments that are shown in the attached file.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is possible to submit more comments, maybe with more help from
> >>>> interested parties, or to clarify other things.  It's the same URL
> >>>> https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings
> >>>>
> >>>> Alex
> >>>>
> >>>> Le 15/01/2020 à 21:11, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
> >>>>> 6. "In support of its waiver request, 5GAA submitted studies of
> >>>>> using 10- and 20-megahertz-wide channels for C-V2X that found that
> >>>>> allowing operation on a single 20-megahertz channel will support
> >>>>> the introduction
> >>>>> of services “that [will] enable many important safety applications,
> >>>>> such as red light warnings, basic safety messages, emergency
> >>>>> alerts, and others, to enhance traffic systems and operations.”"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My comment is the following: one would benefit from considering
> >>>>> carefully the statements from 5GAA.  Depending how it is
> >>>>> interpreted it might be advantageous or not.  For my part, I do
> >>>>> think that some of the claims of 5GAA in some trials make
> >>>>> confusions about cellular technology and DSRC technology.  I do
> >>>>> think that there is at least one publicly demonstrated trial under
> >>>>> the banner of 5GAA which uses DSRC but it claims cellular technology.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That said, with respect to the use of the term "C-V2X": it is not
> >>>>> very clear throughout the FCC Notice whether C-V2X means the
> >>>>> traditional traits of cellular technology that distinguishes it
> >>>>> from WiFi (i.e. use cellular frequencies, use a SIM, specific
> >>>>> codecs, mandatory base station, etc.) or otherwise it means some
> >>>>> more generic "3GPP" technology.  The only place where C-V2X is
> >>>>> defined more properly is when, on page 37, it refers to 3GPP
> >>>>> Release 14. There is no pointer to a particular 3GPP Rel 14
> >>>>> document.  This lets open the imagination to think that it might
> >>>>> mean the WiFi aspects of 3GPP. 3GPP is known to spec things by
> >>>>> stepping into WiFi domain very often, even though in practice there
> >>>>> are no 3GPP deployments on WiFi - and that, since 3G onwards :-)
> >>>>> In this sense, it might be that 'C-V2X' already means something
> >>>>> from WiFi, and why not C-V2X to mean 802.11-OCB and BSM messages?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This lack of precision in mentioning "C-V2X" is what adds a lot to
> >>>>> the confusion - should one accept C-V2X in 5.9GHz bands?  Well yes,
> >>>>> provided 'C-V2X' means a WiFi issued by 3GPP by copy/pasting IEEE.
> >>>>> Well no, if 'C-V2X' means a pure cellular interface with a SIM card
> >>>>> or software, mandatory base station, cellular codecs and specific
> >>>>> expensive specific IPR from well-known particular companies.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 7. "With this Notice, we propose that ITS in this band continue to
> >>>>> provide safety of life services. We seek comment on this proposal."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is my comment, and backed by a colleague from IETF: on which
> >>>>> channel should we run IPv6-over-OCB? (RFC 8691)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 8. "C-V2X in the 5.905-5.925 GHz band. Specifically, we propose to
> >>>>> authorize C-V2X operations in the upper 20 megahertz of the band
> >>>>> (5.905-5.925 GHz). We seek specific and detailed comment on this
> >>>>> proposal that can fully inform our decision."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is my detailed comment: when one wants to authorize a
> >>>>> particular technology on a particular band, then one would like to
> >>>>> make sure that technology is fully specified and understood.  It is
> >>>>> not the case now with 'C-V2X'.  It is a rather new term.  Is it
> >>>>> only the V2X part of 3GPP?  Is it the WiFi part of it?  Which spec
> >>>>> is meant more precisely?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is why, in return, I would like to comment and request to
> >>>>> publicize what more precisely is it meant by C-V2X?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 8. "We seek comment on the available technical studies on C-V2X
> >>>>> that should inform our consideration of C-V2X, including any recent
> >>>>> studies
> >>>>> that provide information about how C-V2X would operate in the 5.9
> >>>>> GHz band."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Where are these technical studies?  Which ones?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 9. "We first seek comment on whether to authorize C-V2X operations
> >>>>> in the 5.895-5.905 GHz band."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My answer is no.  C-V2X is not specified, and it is a too wide term
> >>>>> that might mean too many things.  If C-V2X means the WiFi part of
> >>>>> 3GPP, and in particular 802.11-2016, in particular OCB mode, in
> >>>>> particular BSM messages, then the answer is yes, definitely.  This
> >>>>> would also allow RFC 8691 IPv6 over 802.11-OCB to work.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 10. "Commenters should provide detailed justification to support
> >>>>> specific band plan options, including the types of services that
> >>>>> could or could not be delivered by unlicensed use or by
> >>>>> vehicularrelated
> >>>>> services under each option."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The type of the service that I need is the following: forming of
> >>>>> convoy of 3 self-driving cars - they use IPv6 over 802.11-OCB on 3
> >>>>> distinct 5.9GHz channels in order to minimize interference.   This
> >>>>> could not be delivered if only one channel was available for RFC
> >>>>> 8691 IPv6-over-802.11-OCB.  The demo is filmed and publicly
> >>>>> available on the web.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 11. "(a) DSRCS Roadside Units (RSUs) operating in the 5895-5905 MHz
> >>>>> band must comply with the technical standard Institute of
> >>>>> Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11p-2010."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This forgets that 802.11p is an old name and no longer in use.  The
> >>>>> users of this name neglect that IEEE 802.11-2016 is the current
> >>>>> spec, and which covers old 802.11p behaviour with an 'OCB' mode
> >>>>> (Outside the Context of a BSSID).  That is the standard that should
> >>>>> be referred to by this FCC Notice and not 802.11p.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Additionally, I suggest to add the keyword 'IPv6'.  I suggest to
> >>>>> add a reference to RFC 8691 titled "Basic Support for IPv6 Networks
> >>>>> Operating Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set over IEEE Std
> >>>>> 802.11" which is publicly available on the web.
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> its mailing list
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> its mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> its mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > its mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>


-- 
Yiwen (Chris) Shen, Ph.D. Candidate

Homepage: https://chrisshen.github.io
IoT Lab: *http://iotlab.skku.edu <http://iotlab.skku.edu/>*
Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, South Korea
Mobile:[phone]
Email: [e-mail]