Subject: Re: [ipwave] RFC8902 - TLS with ITS Certificates, EXPERIMENTAL, and the one PKI and one Internet

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 17:12:21 +0200

Le 26/04/2021 à 16:25, William Whyte a écrit :
>  >> If your conclusion is that « this RFC is not really relevant to 
> ITS", this is hard to agree with because the large deployment of C-ITS. 
> As mentioned by William before, ITS deployments across the US, Europe 
> and Australia are currently using 1609.2 certificates.
> 
> Also, ISO 21177 references and builds on RFC 8902, and 21177 is in turn 
> referenced by a number of SAE ITS standards in the US.

Again, a few documents (ISO 21177 and SAE ITS) about which I must shut 
up because I dont know what to say, because I cant see them.  I will not 
buy them.

But, if needed, I can make comments about RFC8902 contents because it is 
open and free.

I suspect that nobody wants RFC8902 modified because that would imply 
modifications to ISO and SAE ITS documents, so, I better dont make these 
comments.

Alex

> 
> William
> 
> *From:* its <[email-masked]> *On Behalf Of * Mounira MSAHLI
> *Sent:* Monday, April 26, 2021 10:08 AM
> *To:* Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
> *Subject:* [EXT] Re: [ipwave] RFC8902 - TLS with ITS Certificates, 
> EXPERIMENTAL, and the one PKI and one Internet
> 
>  >> If there were a need to discuss that RFC then it would have been
> discussed publicly when it was an I-D.
> 
>  >> This is not a negative remark, and all RFCs that go through detailed
> reviews, as this one has, are useful.  Better have an RFC on the topic
> rather than silence.
> 
> In my memory, the RFC was presented by William in IPWAVE GROUP in 2019. 
> But IPWAVE did not host this activity as it was outside the charter as 
> currently written. Although there was a possibility to rewrite 
> the charter, but we had to wait until the two current documents being 
> worked on by IPWAVE had been completed so as not to defocus the group.
> 
> If your conclusion is that « this RFC is not really relevant to ITS", 
> this is hard to agree with because the large deployment of C-ITS. As 
> mentioned by William before, ITS deployments across the US, Europe and 
> Australia are currently using 1609.2 certificates.
> 
> Mounira
>