Re: [ipwave] RSU minor textual issue

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 29 May 2017 15:57 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 45D61129AD1 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 May 2017 08:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.566
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 HsAOZz-hEpIe for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 May 2017 08:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B47E3129AD0 for <its@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 May 2017 08:57:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id v4TFvHuQ009719 for <its@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 May 2017 17:57:17 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 2F231205829 for <its@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 May 2017 17:57:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25E0F205816 for <its@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 May 2017 17:57:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [132.166.84.45] ([132.166.84.45]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v4TFvGdS012909 for <its@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 May 2017 17:57:16 +0200
To: its@ietf.org
References: <b7d0f246-da90-ac56-db69-40e9e929900d@gmail.com> <3916AFEC-80E9-469F-A2D7-F66010AAB23C@vigilsec.com> <019201d2cff3$1d415870$57c40950$@gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f4180150-22d9-e77d-1c5f-e8846f7abd95@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 18:57:16 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <019201d2cff3$1d415870$57c40950$@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/c18mhRgC1BQAmw7ZgcWggFaZ8Fg>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] RSU minor textual issue
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: Mon, 29 May 2017 15:57:20 -0000


Le 18/05/2017 à 18:23, François Simon a écrit :
> In the US, RSUs ARE NOT ROUTERS. There are logical boundaries
> between RSU and functions accessing the infrastructure (when
> required):
>
>
>
> FHWA Definition:
>
> /“1.6. Roadside Units/
>
> /DSRC enables communication between vehicles and roadside equipment,
> but does not/
>
> /generate data necessary to provide warnings and advisories from
> infrastructure to drivers. To/
>
> /support V2I applications, DSRC must be integrated with existing
> traffic equipment, such as/
>
> /Signal Controllers and backhaul connections to Traffic Management
> Centers (TMCs). DSRC/
>
> /devices that serve as the demarcation component between vehicles
> and other mobile devices/
>
> /and existing traffic equipment will be referred to DSRC Roadside
> Units (RSU) in this document.”/
>
> / /
>
> /RSU - A connected device that is only allowed to operate from a
> fixed position/
>
> /(which may in fact be a permanent installation or from temporary/
>
> /equipment brought on-site for a period of time associated with an/
>
> /incident, road construction, or other event). Some RSEs may have/
>
> /connectivity to other nodes or the Internet./

François - but this definition is not related to 802.11-OCB, right?  I 
may suggest that that document talks 802.11-OCB in the definition of an RSU.

Alex

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* its [mailto:its-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Russ
> Housley *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:34 AM *To:* Alexandre
> Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> *Cc:* its@ietf.org *Subject:*
> [ipwave] RSU minor textual issue
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 18, 2017, at 5:39 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> OLD:
>
> RSU: Road Side Unit. 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.
>
>
> A comment was made stating that an RSU is not a router, and that an
> RSU may be connected to a router via an interface, e.g. Ethernet, to
> access the infrastructure if required.
>
> But I think that some Road Side Units are indeed IP routers and they
> access the infrastructure and the Internet.  This is an important
> point when using the IP protocol - be connected.
>
> I think I keep that text that way at this time.
>
> End issue.
>
>
>
> Alex:
>
>
>
> Some RSUs will be routers, but others will not.  For example, an RSU
> that sends messages to vehicles about foggy conditions does not need
> to be a router.  I think the definition should allow both cases.
>
>
>
> Russ
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ its mailing list
> its@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>