Re: [its] New draft on scenarios and requirements for IP in ITS

"Seil Jeon" <seiljeon@av.it.pt> Fri, 27 July 2012 10:24 UTC

Return-Path: <seiljeon@av.it.pt>
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 69B0C21F8613 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 03:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CIq48LQLs6W8 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 03:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av.it.pt (mail.av.it.pt [193.136.92.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A01421F8503 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 03:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [193.136.93.23] (account seiljeon@av.it.pt HELO ATNoGSeil) by av.it.pt (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.2) with ESMTPSA id 65598335; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:24:52 +0100
From: Seil Jeon <seiljeon@av.it.pt>
To: 'Alexandru Petrescu' <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
References: <5000551E.9000800@gmail.com> <000c01cd6a80$8115a550$8340eff0$@av.it.pt> <5011743F.6090708@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5011743F.6090708@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:24:54 +0100
Message-ID: <001701cd6be2$1077ccc0$31676640$@av.it.pt>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQE9yEKjmsKSOjOZNCYEpfBUzNfuGQFAu0iYAaPTH8yYRQihsA==
Content-Language: ko
Cc: its@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [its] New draft on scenarios and requirements for IP in ITS
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Intelligent Transportation Systems discussion list." <its.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 27 Jul 2012 10:24:54 -0000

Hi Alex,

My point was that if you intend to present "Scenarios" for intelligent
transport system, I believe the contents need to show "Vision" when the ITS
technologies we're trying to achieve are well applied.

Current scenarios somewhat seem to get lost focus in the perspective of
"Scenarios".

First, we need to show the "Vision" obviously what we're achieving in ITS.
Of course, this job is always difficult :|

However, if this vision is clear in our mind first, we would become to know
how other works should be done specifically I believe.



Seil


-----Original Message-----
From: its-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:its-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Alexandru Petrescu
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 5:46 PM
To: Seil Jeon
Cc: its@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [its] New draft on scenarios and requirements for IP in ITS

Seil,

Thank you for the message.

I agree mainly with your points.  I find it useful to the future reader if
the scenarios where grouped in classes: necessities of vehicle
communications, high bandwidth availability, and other generica problems.

This may also to separate the requirements which are more specific to
vehicular communications, rather than generic fixed communications.

Is this what you mean?

Do you think a modification of the draft should be done?

Alex

Le 25/07/2012 18:14, Seil Jeon a écrit :
> Hi Alex,
>
>
> Regarding on Section 3 Scenarios, I would classify them with following 
> categories.
>
> Scenarios 1, 3 might be the necessities of vehicle communications
>
> Scenarios 2 describes high wireless accesses availability on current 
> network environment
>
> Scenario 4 - it might be one of requirements.
>
> Scenario 5 - it sounds somewhat generic problem to me where every node 
> to have Internet connection is facing.
>
> ...
>
> My opinion is would we need to specify them focused on necessities of 
> vehicular communications?
>
> Those would be much better to understand requirements followed.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Seil
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: its-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:its-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu Sent:
> Friday, July 13, 2012 6:05 PM To: its@ietf.org Subject: [its] New 
> draft on scenarios and requirements for IP in ITS
>
> Participants to ITS informal effort at IETF,
>
> Per our recent discussions, we submitted a new draft about scenarios 
> and requirements for IP in ITS:
>
> draft-petrescu-its-scenarios-reqs-01.txt
>
> I would like to request feedback about the scenarios and requirements 
> described in this draft.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Alex and on behalf of co-authors.
>
>
>


_______________________________________________
its mailing list
its@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its