Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 RSU term

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 10 February 2017 11:37 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 9557B12945C for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 03:37:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.353
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.353 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 j3HzEXSU1Svr for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 03:37:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 186EC1294F6 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 03:37:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.4) with ESMTP id v1ABbYIT016961; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:37:34 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id C41D520C626; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:37:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7333202B67; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:37:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v1ABbYgW019404; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:37:34 +0100
To: Michelle Wetterwald <mlwetterwald@gmail.com>
References: <148052970170.9607.12043916621198119260.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <d3cdd725-160f-b3cc-540b-00bbcec797c7@cea.fr> <CAF5de8t4TjMK5uLc4XK6O7WAsrd6LPCM29=UoNNg7VZS+6VVYQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9fe84c68-897b-d5e3-ec5f-ba4e5af62f78@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:37:04 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAF5de8t4TjMK5uLc4XK6O7WAsrd6LPCM29=UoNNg7VZS+6VVYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/Xu1RHnson1cdjs7UUy2WQVwvq0o>
Cc: "its@ietf.org" <its@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 RSU term
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 10 Feb 2017 11:37:38 -0000

Hi Michelle,

Thank you for the suggestion.

But making RSR a component of RSU is different than making RSU a
component of RSR, right?

Despite the widespread belief that RSU would have something to do with
IP and Internet, rarely if ever was there an RSU connected to Internet
that forwarded IP packets - most RSUs are disconnected from the Internet
(the supposedly 'slaves' at FHWA) and the ones that are connected to the
Internet (supposedly the 'masters' at FHWA) are so only in order to be
SNMP-managed remotely, but not to forward.

If we know of some RSU which has this 'forwarding' flag set to 1, then
we should talk about it, and call it a Router.

The "ITS station" term is not a term at IETF.  We could re-use the term
"ITS station", but I would like to know whether "ITS Station" is a
Router or a Host?

Yours,

Alex

Le 10/02/2017 à 12:18, Michelle Wetterwald a écrit :
> Hi Alex,
>
> Actually, an RSU is generally more than an RSR as it is an ITS
> station per se and may contain upper (e.g. service or even
> application) layers. I suggest to keep the definition of RSU in the
> text, as it is a widely used term, but clarify that an RSR could be
> one of the components of an RSU.
>
> Best regards, Michelle
>
> 2017-02-10 11:34 GMT+01:00 Alexandre Petrescu
> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com
> <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>>:
>
> draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 RSU term
>
> Hello IPWAVErs,
>
> We received multiple comments about the RSU term.  The strongest
> issue is that apparently there are conflicts between our assumption
> of RSU to be a router and FHWA(?) thinking RSU is more like an
> interface to a router, or something like a master-RSU controlling
> (slave?) RSUs. Unless FHWA tells us they agree RSU is a router, I
> will modify the following:
>
> Old:
>
> 2.  Terminology
>
> [...]
>
> RSU: Road Side Unit.
>
>
> New:
>
> RSR: Road Side Router; an IP router equipped with, or connected to,
> at least one interface that is 802.11 and that is an interface that
> operates in OCB mode.
>
>
> and substitute RSR for RSU throughout.
>
> This old 'RSU' term, now RSR, is absolutely needed in the draft when
> discussing IP handovers and Mobile IP.
>
> Alex
>
>
> _______________________________________________ its mailing list
> its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>
>
>
>
>
> -- Michelle Wetterwald michelle.wetterwald@gmail.com
> <mailto:michelle.wetterwald@gmail.com>