Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 24 January 2020 14:11 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 28FCA12006E for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 06:11:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.632
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.632 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 2WC1ziSOgPls for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 06:11:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5DBE120048 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 06:11:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 00OEBRJO025345 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 15:11:27 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 0A7C6205913 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 15:11:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00657201C91 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 15:11:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.11.240.7] ([10.11.240.7]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 00OEBQOd015109 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 15:11:26 +0100
To: its@ietf.org
References: <EED81985-1D4C-41B2-8CCA-A46B96390A18@vigilsec.com> <1c70cda6-050b-e018-6786-abd99281b6bb@gmail.com> <CADnDZ8-opM3O5U7-C8v+KYTX6-ruQzajRZgDWzzZtXRnJt575Q@mail.gmail.com> <ad3ccd6c-cd99-c47a-d0df-bfb94b5ab40f@gmail.com> <CADnDZ8_wwa91-5UWeqxhJy=nMBp8kwu4ZvfxsAojZCY9DG8jSA@mail.gmail.com> <92850021-914f-ab6a-f8d2-ab793179fa1b@gmail.com> <00d601d5b4ee$01cc9ae0$0565d0a0$@eurecom.fr> <47f48fca-07b9-5657-4cb5-54cc5d63d2e3@gmail.com> <b9ea5f34-0129-614b-d644-0ab95437f6ac@gmail.com> <7664b128-91b7-8fef-1e13-b681b45b1958@gmail.com> <61f9d6f6-1e37-6e15-3a48-48e7047f0fe1@gmail.com> <CADnDZ88tsTvRdr4_jpWxnT0X_3ihTJ8=783-6M-kFNS+uMnA3Q@mail.gmail.com> <b7d40c34-ccdd-2617-0598-62a4b7faf994@gmail.com> <7f2e764a-8d75-a3a8-cd4e-a4406dd8e321@gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <038fea3b-cdd3-dbe3-04f9-fbe873661cf1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 15:11:26 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7f2e764a-8d75-a3a8-cd4e-a4406dd8e321@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/Bva_5hxTGodzpWSxNlkAu6SpeRM>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:11:31 -0000

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
> its@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>