Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-12
François Simon <fygsimon@gmail.com> Fri, 02 February 2018 10:23 UTC
Return-Path: <fygsimon@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 9B17B124BE8 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Feb 2018 02:23:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 ZgIhn7UFuUUv for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Feb 2018 02:23:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22e.google.com (mail-qk0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AC65127978 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Feb 2018 02:23:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id i141so23230823qke.0 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Feb 2018 02:23:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=3GoaS3zearpCtTHn5Oy61ZEAVOkCSiP6ycvHsjdMRa0=; b=JgKQmNLcVCDvI0HjzbhRaSo+HU2VxEhnwU65RVx8Q5UvdY1AWMIoHxeGTOQu0dmxFV s8ZuBhZs6Pp7/epXlwWgdrBzF61pyaMxSFwCTiwBBJOZh/cWg1ZuSNZIZ92PhzL/Ngcv 38TMnnLvSND4Qwci38hVN6PvWrspj0qcldGMMmh2aAWZFoU8AJmLX5rDES5wQvatpP4c cvvTx97bI6SGoxaAL+arH0U3gxLNJDdASER1FRWmgxcRaC8Piv/iijWVJlffnzW+tbb9 ViHIdcLY3l8bEE//O0qXjeeKf0xKrCQso8OUHXxxH5QkRIFVdintNOZBmiNHon69T/ch hQBw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=3GoaS3zearpCtTHn5Oy61ZEAVOkCSiP6ycvHsjdMRa0=; b=GpLPEOEcsceA2840cWazEc3cZDPysRwCA3dYTWK/IEyEiA7MASuIXg8kRUTe0FM2DJ lSqjsTgZ2VdRjYsjgdWC1paAciC+7ZMfOM0R4D2lvwOLu0UqR+AT0pPULMIcncJqTmXv /JlVmTOnWJEGSP8+VmN2CV5g/tXj5huUj0F7ZhL84fRCrC9X46eQmQ3lH3uTpJhPDCSx YYBXyQqi8lgzbCYGWPlbTADvk4v3jndPYtqkE7PSTbZas1kG0FbKg6bMFZOWMpJyYG2S NB+9K5Z1iusPu8SHlk6rIjZgMp36e2rhZMdB3qPBAAguMlNCEFPynwhgpdS1unTq2G6P 5Q1A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdX55JY0HZJqosFiuGeoYjbhTLsAn90Hypntn4YrYEMNIPjOAhe wxpcbFUgzbwWUtDu4Lj90jw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226ElUcoKc2KtI13HXYBX3yBayPEobGnvdtiCWQSgrFOMGBdlB0QcgfpbDocRNzXpeCFhBEb8w==
X-Received: by 10.55.157.82 with SMTP id g79mr61148005qke.161.1517567019121; Fri, 02 Feb 2018 02:23:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from FrancoisPC (pool-108-48-182-86.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [108.48.182.86]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f2sm1145481qkb.19.2018.02.02.02.23.37 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Feb 2018 02:23:37 -0800 (PST)
From: François Simon <fygsimon@gmail.com>
To: 'Alexandre Petrescu' <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: fygsimon@gmail.com, its@ietf.org
References: <1517217856.4315.32.camel@it.uc3m.es> <006601d39910$bdcf1cf0$396d56d0$@gmail.com> <d539c9e9-f9e4-b6c3-e8fc-c6273a7067ce@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <d539c9e9-f9e4-b6c3-e8fc-c6273a7067ce@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 05:23:36 -0500
Message-ID: <000101d39c0f$e3b32f90$ab198eb0$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0002_01D39BE5.FAE1E280"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQL7ISfFSBtQJ/i74DjDJlbgILh28gG4su6HASuQMD+hKrdl4A==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/CCAKjtbjWbSnTJ0-Co-93xLCbSg>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-12
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 02 Feb 2018 10:23:44 -0000
Mr. Petrescu, Let's try one more time to clarify the FCC DSRC (in US only) issue. FCC – DSRC Background: - The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 47 mainly Parts 90 and 95. The last update is dated October 1st, 2010; - This includes the ASTM E 2213-03 standard: “Standard Specification for Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between Roadside and Vehicle Systems — 5 GHz Band Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications”; approved July 10, 2003. The standard is derived from IEEE 802.11a and, in most part, is equivalent to IEEE 802.11 OCB. To date, the DSRC CFRs do not specify IEEE 802.11 OCB. - The related CFRs state that DSRC shall comply with the ASTM E 2213-03. Overview of DSRC functions: The functions listed in DSRC related CFRs are, in general, specified in the ASTM E 2213-03 and IEEE 802.11 OCB: - MAC service definition, frame format, and procedures; - PHY Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM); - PHY Service Data Unit format and modulations (data rates): - 5.9 GHz band allocated channels, frequency, max. EIRP, and spectrum mask; - Individual Channel use: Safety applications, non-safety applications, and priorities. Protocols DSRC being uniquely a MAC and PHY communications service, there here no restriction on Transport and Network protocols that can be used (except for the LCC specified by reference in IEEE 802.11 OCB). In the US, the WAVE standards (IEEE 1609 series) specify these protocols when using DSRC as the communication service. OBU / RSU The CFR (FCC) definitions are: Roadside unit (RSU). A Roadside Unit is a DSRC transceiver that is mounted along a road or pedestrian passageway. An RSU may also be mounted on a vehicle or is hand carried, but it may only operate when the vehicle or hand- carried unit is stationary. Furthermore, an RSU operating under this part is restricted to the location where it is licensed to operate. However, portable or hand-held RSUs are permitted to operate where they do not interfere with a site-licensed operation. A RSU broadcasts data to OBUs or exchanges data with OBUs in its communications zone. An RSU also provides channel assignments and operating instructions to OBUs in its communications zone, when required. - [CFR 90.7 - Definitions] - Revised as October 2010. On-Board unit (OBU). An On-Board Unit is a DSRCS transceiver that is normally mounted in or on a vehicle, or which in some instances may be a portable unit. An OBU can be operational while a vehicle or person is either mobile or stationary. The OBUs receive and contend for time to transmit on one or more radio frequency (RF) channels. Except where specifically excluded, OBU operation is permitted wherever vehicle operation or human passage is permitted. The OBUs mounted in vehicles are licensed by rule under part 95 of this chapter and communicate with Roadside Units (RSUs) and other OBUs. Portable OBUs are also licensed by rule under part 95 of this chapter. OBU operations in the Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (UNII) Bands follow the rules in those bands. - [CFR 90.7 - Definitions] - October 2010 IPWAVE Issue “The problem with the FCC definition of OBU is that it has no relationship to IP. Worse, that FCC definition has no indication that it MAY use IP somehow. And here we say that all OBUs must use IP. Do you see what I mean?” Correct; the OBU has no relationship with IP and is not intended to. IP is a network protocol. If an On-Board Unit (OBU) device is required to exchange IP, it needs to be dealt in protocol(s) and/or Management in higher layers similar to WAVE within the On-Board Equipment (OBE) . “Do you think FCC will mind if we use the term OBU in this draft to mean something else? I, and a colleague, think that FCC would not mind.” Depending of the reader. If one is familiar with DSRC, OBU and RSU as defined by FCC will come in mind. As far as I know, “OBU” and “RSU” are not registered and could be used for other definitions (something like “ATM”: Asynchronous Transfer Mode and Automatic Teller Machine 😊). My suggestion to the IPWAVE team is to use “OBE and RSE”. This is my personal view as I do not represent any involved interest. If any one has questions, let me know. Francois Simon Lojik Technologies -----Original Message----- From: its [mailto:its-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 10:08 AM To: its@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-12 Le 29/01/2018 à 15:52, François Simon a écrit : > My comments arewithin the text*[Fygs.......]*. [...] > In the terminology section, the OBU term is mentioned to be defined > outside the IETF. This is fine, but we have to provide a reference. > And even with that, it would not harm to include some short definition > to provide context. The RSU term is also defined outside the IETF and > there is quite a lot of text provided (I think the relevant part is > the last sentence, the one starting with "The difference between..."). > Both terms should be handled in the same way. > > *[Fygs: The**definitions**was issued by the FCC 20 years ago. I have > already provided that information**and references multiple > times.]*** The problem with the FCC definition of OBU is that it has no relationship to IP. Worse, that FCC definition has no indication that it MAY use IP somehow. And here we say that all OBUs must use IP. Do you see what I mean? Do you think FCC will mind if we use the term OBU in this draft to mean something else? I, and a colleague, think that FCC would not mind. Alex _______________________________________________ its mailing list its@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Scott Weeks
- [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… François Simon
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… François Simon
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Tony Li
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… John Kenney
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- [ipwave] FW: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… François Simon
- [ipwave] FW: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… François Simon
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Russ Housley
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… François Simon
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… François Simon
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… François Simon
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Dirk.von-Hugo
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… François Simon
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- [ipwave] FW: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… François Simon
- Re: [ipwave] FW: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ip… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] FW: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ip… François Simon
- Re: [ipwave] FW: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ip… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] FW: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ip… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] FW: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ip… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] FW: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ip… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] FW: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ip… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… François Simon
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Tony Li
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… tony.li
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… tony.li
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Tony Li
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… tony.li
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… tony.li
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Tony Li
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… tony.li
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Tony Li
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Nabil Benamar
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… François Simon
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… tony.li
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave… Tony Li
- Re: [ipwave] addresses Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] addresses Abdussalam Baryun