[ipwave] Platooning comments on draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-23

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

About draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-23.

As a side note, I would like to make a few comments on this draft with 
respect to its platooning discussion.

I am not suggesting modifications to the draft, but as more time passes 
I think it is necessary to consider that the domain evolves.

This draft is generally a good overview of vehicular networking.  But as 
the draft advances, the domain of activities performed outside the draft 
advances too.  In particular, in the discussions about V2V and 
platooning several significant evolvements were realized since the first 
parts of the draft were written.

For example, the 'multi-brand truck' platooning in Europe ('ENSEMBLE') 
was demonstrated on 7 vehicles just a few days ago; earlier it was just 
3 trucks.  They use a mixture of bouncing signal (radar, camera) ACC, a 
newly proposed ETSI CAM extensions messages, but no IP; they also use a 
single antenna on the truck.

Other platooning or convoy demonstrators were performed in recent years: 
one used 3 small automated vehicles in 'AUTOPILOT' with IPv6 and RTMAPS, 
entirely new (non-CAM) TCP payloads of IPv6 messages (non-CAM), and 
distinct front-rear antennas; it also used enhancements to RA messages 
for route propagation in a linear topology.  Another 'AUTOPILOT' 
demonstrator used 2 or 3 Toyotas using IP on cellular in order to 'form' 
the convoy; that communicated 'V2V' but a more complex 'V2V': at link 
layer it is V2I2V but at app layer it is V2V (car to cloud and back to 
car with a polling protocol).

The descriptions of V2V and platooning in this draft do not mention the 
fact that a car might have distinct front-rear antennas.   In Figure 4: 
Multihop Internetworking between Two Vehicle Networks, one can see a 
single roof antenna in each car.  That is a possibility, and not the 
only one.  In other platoons there are two antennas in each car.

Further, the draft doest not give reference to something else than than 
the US Truck Platooning of 'PATH'.  That is a very good earlier 
reference, but there is more references to give now, e.g. 'ENSEMBLE' and 
'AUTOPILOT'.  I have an URL handy for ENSEMBLE 
https://platooningensemble.eu/library/presentations but for 'AUTOPILOT' 
I cant really suggest an URL; the reason I cant suggest an URL for 
AUTOPILOT is not that it does not exist, but the manner in which it 
exists illustrates a signficant failure of the Certificate Authority 
concept as we know it (Let's Encrypt is good, but fails in some browsers).

Alex


Le 18/09/2021 à 03:15, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong a écrit :
> Hi Abdussalam,
> I tried to address the comments of Pascal Thubert as an Intdir reviewer
> during the IESG last call, especially RPL.
> I discussed the pros and cons of RPL for vehicular networks in the 
> revision.
>
> This draft is waiting for the Writeup of our AD Erik Kline for the 
> IESG review.
>
> Let's see the feedback from the IESG and reflect their comments 
> on the draft.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best Regards,
> Paul
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 6:07 AM Abdussalam Baryun 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Paul,
>
>     Thank you for your efforts, so do you mean now it is pushed to
>     IESG? if yes then ok its good news for me and the WG.
>     We I don't need other work to be pushed as primarily in this WG-doc.
>
>     comments below,
>
>     On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 3:06 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>         Hi Abdussalam,
>         Thanks for your opinion.
>
>
>     good comments and suggests, I would prefer that you commented on it.
>
>
>         The IPWAVE PS Draft has been made and updated by IPWAVE WG
>         since October 2016, that is, for the last 5 years.
>
>
>     yes 5 year for informational..... and I am following, so no
>     problem we need to push it by replies to get it through,
>
>
>         As the editor of this draft, I think that the coauthors as
>         contributors and I have reflected the opinions of IPWAVE WG on
>         this draft.
>
>
>     not sure I understand your statement. I want that we progress in
>     the process for all docs (it is informational draft). Therefore, I
>     supported Alex's comment because reviewer has suggested some
>     things that do not reflect any of this WG.
>
>     Regards
>     AB
>