Re: [its] IP over 802.11p - frequencies local

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 13/02/2013 20:59, Dr. Hans-Joachim Fischer a écrit :
>
> The 30 MHz allocated in Europe around 5,9 GHz are reserved for road
> safety.

I agree.  (it's a band of 30MHz width from 5875MHz to 5905MHz,
colloquially known here as the '5.9GHz' band. (for precision remark that
in France for example, the 5 930,375  to 6 167,625  MHz is reserved for
other than road safety purposes (ptp), and these people may rightfully
talk '5.9GHz' band as well).

> However the service advertisement message (SAM) has to go on the CCH
> (as agreed at ETSI TC ITS). However the session, which could be an
> entertainment session, has to be performed on other channels, maybe
> on other media.

I agree.

There are two points here.

In IP there is no notion of advertising some IP service on a particular
channel, and deal that service on another channel.  For example, there
is this "Router Advertisement" message but it happens on the same
channel as the IP traffic.  (there is also Session Advertisement,
Link-State Advertisement, more - they all are on the same channel as the
traffic itself).

About performing IP entertainment on another media.  I am trying to find
out what is that media.  I think in France I have exhausted all possible
frequencies, but I will reply separately about "Wireless LAN", ITS-G5C.

> I guess that the "dream of video-streaming via 802.11p" now is
> identified as a dream.

I think I agree.  I think IP-over-802.11p-for-entertainment in France is
not possible.

> Bandwidth problems and reservation of bands for specific purposes
> are a fact.
>
> This is absolutely independent from using IPv6 or not. IPv6 is THE
> networking technology for Cooperative ITS - no doubt. GeoNetworking
> over ITS-G5 or even tunneling of IP over GeoNetworking over ITS-G5
> simply is a NO-GO.

Do you mean the entire ITS-G5? (ITS-G5A == 5,875 GHz to 5,905 GHz,
ITS-G5B==5,855 GHz to 5,875 GHz and ITS-G5C==5,470 GHz to 5,725 GHz).

I without searching would say that GeoNetworking would be ok for ITS-G5B
and maybe ITS-G5A.

> For simple single-hop communications, which is the primary task of
> V2V, FNTP from ISO is much more efficient than GeoNetworking.

What is FNTP from ISO?

I am interested in V2V communications.  There are two Internet Drafts
describing a technique for V2V communications:
draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-03.txt
draft-jhlee-mext-mnpp-00

We would like to work on this.

> When it comes to the need of geo-dissemination of information, IPv6
> should be used without GeoNetworking, transported over any kind of
> network (802.11p in a first hop, cellular networks, Internet, ...).

I am trying to wrap my mind around geo-dissemination without
geonetworking...

> Please note also that GeoNetworking is covered by IPRs from NEC and
> others.

This is good to know, informally speaking.  One may even try to look in
detail at this, see what is protected and how, what is left open, etc.

Yours,

Alex

>
>
> Hans-Joachim
>
> Am 13.02.2013 15:07, schrieb Alexandru Petrescu:
>> Le 13/02/2013 11:31, Romain KUNTZ a écrit :
>>> Hello Alexandru,
>>>
>>> On Feb 12, 2013, at 12:26 , Alexandru Petrescu
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> Le 11/02/2013 23:03, Romain KUNTZ a écrit :
>>>>> Hello Alexandru,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 11, 2013, at 16:30 , Alexandru Petrescu
>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>> I think yes 802.11p is mandated for ITS in Europe by ETSI
>>>>>> ITS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But unfortuntaly for me, the situation in the country I
>>>>>> live (France) seems to be that one is not allowed to use
>>>>>> IP-over-802.11p without geonetworking (i.e. not allowed to
>>>>>> use the frequencies allocated to ITS for 802.11p without
>>>>>> using ETSI ITS i.e. geonetworking).
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have any reference that supports this statement? I
>>>>> have never heard of such restrictions in France so far.
>>>>
>>>> Hello Romain,
>>>>
>>>> What channel/frequency would one consider in France, for
>>>> IP-over-80211p-w/o-geonet?
>>>>
>>>> About references - the quick study I did is on references from
>>>>  ARCEP and ETSI, simplified below.
>>>>
>>>> The site of ARCEP[*] says only the following frequencies are
>>>> reserved for ITS: 5 875  - 5 905  MHz "ITS"
>>>>
>>>> But the ETSI[**] lists the following center frequencies, with a
>>>> channel spacing of 10MHz, and their purposes : 5 900 MHz - G5CC
>>>> (Control Channel)   - number 180 5 890 MHz - G5SC2 (Service
>>>> Channel 2) - number 178 5 880 MHz - G5SC1 (Service Channel 1) -
>>>> number 176 5 870 MHz - G5SC3 (Service Channel 3) - number 174 5
>>>> 860 MHz - G5SC4 (Service Channel 4) - number 172 5 470 MHz to 5
>>>> 725 MHz - G5SC5.
>>>>
>>>> Crossing ARCEP with ETSI one notices that only G5CC, G5SC2 and
>>>>  G5SC1 can be used in France for 'ITS'.
>>>>
>>>> As for the specific purposes of each such channel for ITS,
>>>> ETSI[**] document says: "G5SC1 and G5SC2 shall be used for ITS
>>>> road safety and traffic efficiency applications". "Other ITS
>>>> user applications G5SC3, G5SC4 and G5SC5".
>>>>
>>>> I speculate IP-over-80211p-without-geonet could be qualified as
>>>> 'Other ITS user applications', and would not be qualified as
>>>> 'ITS road safety' nor as 'traffic efficiency applications'.
>>>
>>> Thank you for the pointers. From what I understand, ITS road
>>> safety is not tied to geonetworking, so I believe
>>> IP-over-80211p-without-geonet can be performed on any of the
>>> allowed channels.
>>
>> There would be no risk if I send entertainment vlc videostreams on
>> the Control Channel?
>>
>> Could I really send whatever I want on this channel?
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>>
>>> Romain
>>>
>>>
>>>> It is for thess reasons that I speculate
>>>> IP-over-80211p-without-geonet is not possible in France.
>>>>
>>>> I may be missing something?
>>>>
>>>> Alex [*] ARCEP "Autorité de régulation des comm. électroniques
>>>> et des postes" https://www.espectre.arcep.fr/index.php (filled
>>>> in "Fréquence Inférieure" as 5470MHz and "Fréquence Supérieure"
>>>> as 5905MHz, then click "Rechercher", then locate "ITS" in that
>>>> page) [**] ETSI ITS Final draft ETSI ES 202 663 V1.1.0
>>>> (2009-11) Page 13 Publicly available document retrieved on 12
>>>> February 2013 at
>>>>
>>>> http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_es/202600_202699/202663/01.01.00_50/es_202663v010100m.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> Thank you, Romain
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> These factors seem to strongly hamper the development of
>>>>>> vehicular specific communication technology at IETF: -
>>>>>> lack of open-source driver codes for 802.11p - lack of open
>>>>>> and free-of-charge access to ETSI standards - lack of open
>>>>>>  access to ETSI interoperability results - lack of cheap
>>>>>> hardware implementations of 802.11p - lack of
>>>>>> unregulated/unlicensed frequency allocated for
>>>>>> IP-over-80211p for long range. - technical
>>>>>> misunderstanding between the ETSI point of view of what is
>>>>>> IP and the IETF of same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although I may sound relatively pessimistic, I also
>>>>>> consider I may be wrong in my reasoning above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: [e-mail]
>>>>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alexandru
>>>>>>> Petrescu Sent: 31 January 2013 15:17 To: [e-mail]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [its] IP over 802.11p
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le 31/01/2013 14:47, Thierry Ernst a écrit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, we do actually run IPv6 over 11p (with or without
>>>>>>>> GeoNetworking), so I don't see what kind of issues
>>>>>>>> there might be ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have some clarification questions about EtherType and
>>>>>>> 802.11p and GeoNetworking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess when you run IPv6 over 11p with GeoNetworking,
>>>>>>> the Ethernet header uses EtherType soon-to-be-0x8947,
>>>>>>> whereas when you run IPv6 over 11p without
>>>>>>> GeoNetworking, the Ethernet header uses EtherType 0x86DD.
>>>>>>> This is just a supposition, I don't know how you run it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, if I run IPv4 over 11p with GeoNetworking - should
>>>>>>> I use EtherType soon-to-be-0x8947?  Or other?  I suppose
>>>>>>> that if I run IPv4 over 11p without GeoNetworking I
>>>>>>> should use EtherType 0x0800, and if it's ARP over
>>>>>>> 802.11p still without GeoNetworking then I should use
>>>>>>> EtherType 0x0806.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (the letter we've seen recently is not clear whether that
>>>>>>> allocation is for GeoNetworking, for IP-over-802.11p, for
>>>>>>> ETSI ITS, for GeoNetworking for IPv6, for GeoNetworking
>>>>>>> for IPv4, etc. It is not clear either whether
>>>>>>> GeoNetworking supports IPv4 or not, or under what form).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also have some questions about the relationship
>>>>>>> between the nature of some 802.11p links (no ESSID,
>>>>>>> absence of link-layer security - as opposed to WiFi which
>>>>>>> has ESSID and link-layer security) and IP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example - will V2V prefix exchange using Router
>>>>>>> Advertisements work easier on 802.11p links (easier than
>>>>>>> on WiFi), because the ESSID does not need to be
>>>>>>> discovered, the ad-hoc network does not need to be
>>>>>>> formed - suffices it to send packets on a certain
>>>>>>> channel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (in a V2V draft one seems to say that the presence of
>>>>>>> Access Point is absolutely necessary in order for
>>>>>>> 802.11p to work; but in our experimentations this is not
>>>>>>> the case - it is possible to establish direct
>>>>>>> vehicle-to-vehicle IP-over-802.11p communications without
>>>>>>> the presence of a fixed 802.11p Access Point).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For another example - will IP prefer that the 802.11p
>>>>>>> channel in France be 176, 178 or 180? (with WiFi, IP
>>>>>>> does not care because it can work on any of the 11
>>>>>>> channels equally well, but with 802.11p each of these
>>>>>>> three channels seem to be reserved for "Services",
>>>>>>> "Control" and "Services").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For another example - is all the security on these links
>>>>>>>  entirely relaying on IP layer security (IPsec, SeND,
>>>>>>> EAP, PANA)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think finding consensus on some of these questions
>>>>>>> could lead to interoperability.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards, Thierry
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 31/01/13 13:55, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Given current discussions, I think it may be worth
>>>>>>>>> considering a work item about how to run IP over
>>>>>>>>> 802.11p.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One of the things to say would be whether or not
>>>>>>>>> this is IPv6 only or IPv4 also.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This would say how this would work _without_
>>>>>>>>> GeoNetworking.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would agree on the EtherType and/or whether there
>>>>>>>>> are new ones, several or only one, or reusing
>>>>>>>>> existing EtherTypes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It could be as simple as to say that IP works over
>>>>>>>>> 802.11p just as it works over 802.11b - no
>>>>>>>>> modifications.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Le 30/01/2013 11:10, Alexandru Petrescu a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>> Le 30/01/2013 11:04, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) a écrit
>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Alexandru,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> IEEE talk only hexa in their Ethertype files.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I tend to agree that #8947 is a hexadecimal
>>>>>>>>>> notation also because the sharp sign preceding it,
>>>>>>>>>> and because if it were decimal it would convert to
>>>>>>>>>> 22F3 which is already reserved for trill.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I just watend to make sure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From:
>>>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandru Petrescu Sent: Wednesday, January
>>>>>>>>>>>> 30, 2013 12:00 PM To: [e-mail] Subject:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Re: [its] What do we need to make ITS WG go
>>>>>>>>>>>> forward? - EtherType for ITS
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Dan,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the email.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we definitely need a good interface
>>>>>>>>>>>> with IEEE about this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you could ask them whether this number is
>>>>>>>>>>>> hexa or decimal, so we know what to put in
>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation (e.g. wireshark packet
>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzers, and 802.11p/etsi-its
>>>>>>>>>>>> implementations).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, I am interested to learn whether this
>>>>>>>>>>>> deserves being reserved at IANA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 30/01/2013 10:49, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) a
>>>>>>>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The documents that you are referring (on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ETSI server) are not freely accessible. A
>>>>>>>>>>>>> password is required, and probably only ETSI
>>>>>>>>>>>>> members have the access information.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The responsibility for assigning EtherType
>>>>>>>>>>>>> values is with the IEEE Registration
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Authority. They maintain a public list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (updated daily) at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/ethertype/eth.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and according to this list the value 8947 is not allocated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, the public listing information for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> EtherTypes bears a disclaimer that says
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * This is a partial listing of all assigned
>>>>>>>>>>>>> EtherType Fields. Not
>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recipients wish to publish their assignment
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at this time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did ETSI require for this information not to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be published? It does not look useful if they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to encourage interoperability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Value 0707 mentioned in the thread is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me know if I can help (as IETF liaison
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the IEEE-SA).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:*[e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Thierry Ernst *Sent:* Wednesday, January 30,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2013 11:11 AM *To:* [e-mail] *Subject:*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Re: [its] What do we need to make ITS WG go
>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward? - EtherType for ITS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IEEE have assigned Ethernet Type Field number
>>>>>>>>>>>>> #8947 for ITS use (ETSI TC ITS's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> GeoNetworking). Check the following document
>>>>>>>>>>>>> available on the ETSI server:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ITS(13)000020
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://docbox.etsi.org/ITS/ITS/05-CONTRIBUTIONS/2013/ITS%2813%2900002
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> 0_Ethernet_Type_Field_number_for_GeoNetworking.pdf>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ethernet Type Field number for GeoNetworking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://docbox.etsi.org/ITS/ITS/05-CONTRIBUTIONS/2013/ITS(13)000020_Eth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> ernet_Type_Field_number_for_GeoNetworking.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, Thierry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/01/13 14:28, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 28/01/2013 14:16, Joe Klein a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really dislike the fact that ISO is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> charging for the ISO 21217 - Architecture &
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ISO 21210 - IPv6 Networking.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this make it any better? Safer?  Should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ISO now have cybersecurity and safety
>>>>>>>>>>>>> liability if the specification leads to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> deaths and damage to property?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does it make any better interoperable as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> well?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> EtherType 0x0707 described in ITS documents,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  implemented, but not specified by IEEE nor
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reserved at IANA - does not make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interoperable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One wouldn't think that this 0x0707
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ethertype be reserved by
>>>>>>>>>>>> somebody
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who is not IANA nor IEEE?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (see a good example of interoperability: IPv6
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0x86dd ethertype is reserved at IEEE and at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IANA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ieee-802-numbers/ieee-802-numbers.xml)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> Alex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or should these standards remain in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the public domain, for researches to review
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and validate?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Thierry
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ernst <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> At this stage, I don't think a new working
>>>>>>>>>>>>> group is needed. First, it would need a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> charter, and support from the industry. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more importantly, IETF WGs are not usually
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sector-driven, so it means the different
>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues pertaining to ITS should be brought
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> VARIOUS
>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing WGs, and a WG should only be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> created if there is an important issue for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which there is no existing WG that could work
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This said, as mentioned earlier, ITS is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only about vehicular communications, though
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the issues listed by Alexandru below mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider vehicular communications.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What ITS really needs is the definition of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  common communication architecture and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of what features should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> comprised for an IPv6 networking stack
>>>>>>>>>>>>> deployed for ITS use cases. This cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> done at IETF, and actually already exists at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ISO: - ISO 21217 - Architecture - ISO 21210 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IPv6 Networking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As an input to the discussion, please
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider reading documents D2.1 and D2.2
>>>>>>>>>>>>> available on the ITSSv6 project web page:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.itssv6.eu/documentation/ D2.2
>>>>>>>>>>>>> provides an analysis of the currently
>>>>>>>>>>>>> published version of ISO 21210, but new work
>>>>>>>>>>>>> items have been launched since then to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> address remaining issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, Thierry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/01/13 11:08, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 28/01/2013 05:02, Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is just one opinion, but I'd like to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand why ITS would need its own IETF
>>>>>>>>>>>>> group. The work here is the same (IMO) as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what is taking place in MANET. I would vote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this work be taken up in MANET.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stan,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the offer.  I considered this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> offer since some time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I try to understand whether some of these
>>>>>>>>>>>>> items on which I have interest could be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> brought in in MANET WG: - V2V using prefix
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchange - VIN-based IP addressing scheme -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ND Prefix Delegation - PMIP-based network
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mobility - IPv6 single-address connecion
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'sharing' with a cellular operator and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vehicular moving network (type '64share' of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> v6ops). - Default Route with DHCPv6.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yours,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, Stan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 26, 2013, at 9:34 AM, Abdussalam
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Baryun wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Nabil,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we already done some steps but not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure how far now. We will need to propose
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the WG and provide the WG charter, as use
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases and work to be done in this group.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This charter needs to be approved by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IESG. I have not attended the last meeting so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not sure about the status now,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/26/13, Nabil Benamar
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm still interested in this list and want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> join voices previously heard to make it a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> working group. So what should we exactly do,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to achieve this goal ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2013/1/26 Abdussalam Baryun
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was interested in this group but not sure
>>>>>>>>>>>>> where are we so far. Is there progress, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is there issues/efforts that need to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> completed and volunteered.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AB
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
its mailing list [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- * * *تحياتي ، **Cordialement, Regards* *
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * *نبيل بنعمروNabil Benamar* Professor
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of computer sciences Simulation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modelisation Laboratory Human Sciences
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Faculty of Meknes Moulay Ismail* *University*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meknes, Morocco *GSM: * *+ 212 6 70832236
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://nabilbenamar.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mailing list [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
its
>>>>>>>>>>>> mailing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> list [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
its
>>>>>>>>>>>> mailing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> list [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
its mailing
>>>>>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
its mailing list [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
its mailing list [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
its mailing list [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
its mailing list [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ its
>>>>>>>>>> mailing list [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ its
>>>>>>>>> mailing list [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ its
>>>>>>>> mailing list [e-mail]
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ its
>>>>>>> mailing list [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its The
>>>>>>> information contained within this e-mail and any files
>>>>>>> attached to this e-mail is private and in addition may
>>>>>>> include commercially sensitive information. The contents
>>>>>>> of this e-mail are for the intended recipient only and
>>>>>>> therefore if you wish to disclose the information
>>>>>>> contained within this e-mail or attached files, please
>>>>>>> contact the sender prior to any such disclosure. If you
>>>>>>> are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying
>>>>>>> or distribution is prohibited. Please also contact the
>>>>>>> sender and inform them of the error and delete the
>>>>>>> e-mail, including any attached files from your system.
>>>>>>> Cassidian Limited, Registered Office : Quadrant House,
>>>>>>> Celtic Springs, Coedkernew, Newport, NP10 8FZ Company No:
>>>>>>> 04191036 http://www.cassidian.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ its mailing
>>>>>> list [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ its mailing list
>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>