Re: [its] charter ITS

Alex,
--
Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random
Protocol Engineering Lab., Sangmyung University

#email: jonghyouk@gmail.com
#webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon

> On Apr 19, 2016, at 2:12 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Le 18/04/2016 17:56, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) a écrit :
>> Hi Jong-Hyouk,
>> 
>> > I officially request that we should have a solution for IP prefix
>> exchanges as a work item.
>> 
>> This is one specific approach. The description for the work item can be
>> bit more generic.
> 
> Thanks, but I would need a title for it.
> 
> How about:
> 
> "Solution for 1-hop IP V2V"?
> 
> "Solution to establish a 1-hop IP path between nearby moving networks or between nearby moving networks and an immediate fixed network"
> 
> "Solution for Moving/Fixed Network Discovery and 1-hop Path
> Establishment"?
> 
> "Solution for end-to-end path establishment in a star topology
> with 1-hop fragile core and n-hop stable edges”?

We may refer the ISO/TC204 liaison link: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-its-7.pdf

As presented at the slide #13 above: ISO/TC204 calls "Direct communication between ITS stations” Its need has been well presented and as expressed at the slides, ISO/TC204 says…"Generically applicable IETF standard is sought on this otherwise ISO will develop its own” Thierry would have a better idea. Let me him in this loop.

Note that the request of the development of a solution for direct communication between ITS stations has a long history and as you may know because of this request the mnpp protocol (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jhlee-mext-mnpp-00 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jhlee-mext-mnpp-00>) was developed as a result of FP7 EU project, Geonet (design and development of Geoneworking over IPv6). At that time, there was no place to make it as RFC at the IETF due to not matured ITS activities at the IETF.

Cheers.

> 
> Alex
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sri
>> 
>> 
>> From: Jong-Hyouk Lee <jonghyouk@gmail.com <mailto:jonghyouk@gmail.com>>
>> Date: Monday, April 18, 2016 at 8:22 AM
>> To: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com <mailto:sgundave@cisco.com>>
>> Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com
>> <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>>, "its@ietf.org
>> <mailto:its@ietf.org>" <its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [its] charter ITS - proposed work items
>> 
>> Hi Sri,
>> 
>> Just one comment regarding IP prefix exchanges. Plz see inline.
>> --
>> Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random
>> Protocol Engineering Lab., Sangmyung University
>> 
>> #email: jonghyouk@gmail.com <mailto:jonghyouk@gmail.com>
>> #webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon
>> 
>>> On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:51 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
>>> <sgundave@cisco.com <mailto:sgundave@cisco.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Alex – Inline ..
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>>
>>> Cc: "its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org>" <its@ietf.org
>>> <mailto:its@ietf.org>>
>>> Subject: Re: [its] charter ITS - proposed work items
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ITSers, We work on a more rigorous ITS charter text. Now we propose
>>> four work items: 1. "Problem statement for IP in V2V and V2I"
>>> including "IP addressing architecture for V2V and V2I" and including
>>> "Gap Analysis: IP protocols suited and gaps" and including "Use-cases
>>> for IP in V2V and V2I moving network to nearby moving or fixed network"
>>> [Sri] Agree. This is a good starting point. Use-Cases document is
>>> needed. On the Gap Analysis document, it should be stated as how the
>>> gaps are captured and in relation to what technology. Is it NEMO,
>>> MANET, some other protocols ?
>>> 
>>> 2. "Threat Analysis for IP prefix exchanges in V2V and V2I context"
>>> [Sri] If my starting point is #1, not sure how to read this ? Prefix
>>> exchanges appears more like a solution. In MANET there is exchange of
>>> prefixes, in NEMO we don’t inject those prefixes and so I do not know
>>> if this work item is valid at this time.
>> 
>> You are right. That is a missing part. We need to have a solution for
>> "IP prefix exchanges in V2V and V2I” The need of IP prefix exchanges is
>> clear and well presented in PS documents for IP in V2V and V2I. Then,
>> there are 2 documents already existing as below:
>> 
>> 1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-00
>> 2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jhlee-mext-mnpp-00
>> 
>> The above 2 documents are the early effort to establish IP direction
>> communications between vehicles and also between a vehicle and a road
>> side unit.
>> 
>> I officially request that we should have a solution for IP prefix
>> exchanges as a work item.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers!
>>> 
>>> 3. "IP over DSRC (802.11-OCB)" typical IP-over-foo document[*],
>>> including connectivity in fast and asymmetric conditions, coverage
>>> area vs speed diagrams, below-IP congestion management.
>>> 
>>> 4. "List of papers and _products_ using IP in V2V and V2I"
>>> [Sri] Not clear what the deliverable is.
>>> 
>>> What do you think? Please respond by next Monday, April 18th.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> its mailing list
>>> its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>> 