Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 25 January 2021 17:40 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 20FC63A165C for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 09:40:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.155
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.155 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.972, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 w6W_GEnSQS8h for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 09:40:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (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 33E313A1650 for <its@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 09:40:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 10PHeodM019444 for <its@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:40:50 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 1D68B20945F for <its@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:40:50 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12CEB209369 for <its@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:40:50 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.14.2.198] ([10.14.2.198]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 10PHenNm024111 for <its@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:40:49 +0100
To: its@ietf.org
References: <EED81985-1D4C-41B2-8CCA-A46B96390A18@vigilsec.com> <1c70cda6-050b-e018-6786-abd99281b6bb@gmail.com> <CADnDZ8-opM3O5U7-C8v+KYTX6-ruQzajRZgDWzzZtXRnJt575Q@mail.gmail.com> <ad3ccd6c-cd99-c47a-d0df-bfb94b5ab40f@gmail.com> <CADnDZ8_wwa91-5UWeqxhJy=nMBp8kwu4ZvfxsAojZCY9DG8jSA@mail.gmail.com> <92850021-914f-ab6a-f8d2-ab793179fa1b@gmail.com> <00d601d5b4ee$01cc9ae0$0565d0a0$@eurecom.fr> <47f48fca-07b9-5657-4cb5-54cc5d63d2e3@gmail.com> <b9ea5f34-0129-614b-d644-0ab95437f6ac@gmail.com> <7664b128-91b7-8fef-1e13-b681b45b1958@gmail.com> <61f9d6f6-1e37-6e15-3a48-48e7047f0fe1@gmail.com> <CADnDZ88tsTvRdr4_jpWxnT0X_3ihTJ8=783-6M-kFNS+uMnA3Q@mail.gmail.com> <b7d40c34-ccdd-2617-0598-62a4b7faf994@gmail.com> <7f2e764a-8d75-a3a8-cd4e-a4406dd8e321@gmail.com> <038fea3b-cdd3-dbe3-04f9-fbe873661cf1@gmail.com> <0e29e730-e62a-f864-ad10-81f5e524bf33@gmail.com> <b8c89459-0778-9c50-64d7-0373e38cfb17@gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <50d6bbf8-da70-15f3-ff19-3103393aa35a@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:40:49 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b8c89459-0778-9c50-64d7-0373e38cfb17@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/eTiaJHld-LNAdhw87Dg_qAqgWe0>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 25 Jan 2021 17:41:01 -0000

I was pointed in private that a new plan is there 
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-modernizes-59-ghz-band-improve-wi-fi-and-automotive-safety-0

My quick read tells me that is potentially a significant change in 
spectrum use.

Le 25/01/2021 à 17:58, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
> Hi, IPWAVErs,
> 
> Do you know what is the result of this plan of allocating 5.9GHz bands 
> for C-V2X?
> 
> Have I missed a follow up of it?
> 
> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-promote-innovation-59-ghz-band-0
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
> Le 10/07/2020 à 14:42, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like to know wheher FCC advanced well while seeking to promote 
>> innovation in the 5.9GHz band?
>>
>> In particular, is now IPv6 allowed to run on the control channel 
>> 5895-5905MHz on 802.11 in OCB mode?
>>
>> The URL to the FCC document stating that seeking of promotion of 
>> innovation is this, but I cant figure out a conclusion of it(?)
>> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-promote-innovation-59-ghz-band-0
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> Le 24/01/2020 à 15:11, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
>>> for information, the filing is now visible at
>>> https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10115292918548
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 15/01/2020 à 21:34, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
>>>> I submitted the comments that are shown in the attached file.
>>>>
>>>> It is possible to submit more comments, maybe with more help from 
>>>> interested parties, or to clarify other things.  It's the same URL 
>>>> https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>> Le 15/01/2020 à 21:11, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
>>>>> 6. "In support of its waiver request, 5GAA submitted studies of 
>>>>> using 10- and 20-megahertz-wide channels for C-V2X that found that 
>>>>> allowing operation on a single 20-megahertz channel will support 
>>>>> the introduction
>>>>> of services “that [will] enable many important safety applications, 
>>>>> such as red light warnings, basic safety messages, emergency 
>>>>> alerts, and others, to enhance traffic systems and operations.”"
>>>>>
>>>>> My comment is the following: one would benefit from considering 
>>>>> carefully the statements from 5GAA.  Depending how it is 
>>>>> interpreted it might be advantageous or not.  For my part, I do 
>>>>> think that some of the claims of 5GAA in some trials make 
>>>>> confusions about cellular technology and DSRC technology.  I do 
>>>>> think that there is at least one publicly demonstrated trial under 
>>>>> the banner of 5GAA which uses DSRC but it claims cellular technology.
>>>>>
>>>>> That said, with respect to the use of the term "C-V2X": it is not 
>>>>> very clear throughout the FCC Notice whether C-V2X means the 
>>>>> traditional traits of cellular technology that distinguishes it 
>>>>> from WiFi (i.e. use cellular frequencies, use a SIM, specific 
>>>>> codecs, mandatory base station, etc.) or otherwise it means some 
>>>>> more generic "3GPP" technology.  The only place where C-V2X is 
>>>>> defined more properly is when, on page 37, it refers to 3GPP 
>>>>> Release 14. There is no pointer to a particular 3GPP Rel 14 
>>>>> document.  This lets open the imagination to think that it might 
>>>>> mean the WiFi aspects of 3GPP. 3GPP is known to spec things by 
>>>>> stepping into WiFi domain very often, even though in practice there 
>>>>> are no 3GPP deployments on WiFi - and that, since 3G onwards :-)  
>>>>> In this sense, it might be that 'C-V2X' already means something 
>>>>> from WiFi, and why not C-V2X to mean 802.11-OCB and BSM messages?
>>>>>
>>>>> This lack of precision in mentioning "C-V2X" is what adds a lot to 
>>>>> the confusion - should one accept C-V2X in 5.9GHz bands?  Well yes, 
>>>>> provided 'C-V2X' means a WiFi issued by 3GPP by copy/pasting IEEE. 
>>>>> Well no, if 'C-V2X' means a pure cellular interface with a SIM card 
>>>>> or software, mandatory base station, cellular codecs and specific 
>>>>> expensive specific IPR from well-known particular companies.
>>>>>
>>>>> 7. "With this Notice, we propose that ITS in this band continue to 
>>>>> provide safety of life services. We seek comment on this proposal."
>>>>>
>>>>> This is my comment, and backed by a colleague from IETF: on which 
>>>>> channel should we run IPv6-over-OCB? (RFC 8691)
>>>>>
>>>>> 8. "C-V2X in the 5.905-5.925 GHz band. Specifically, we propose to 
>>>>> authorize C-V2X operations in the upper 20 megahertz of the band 
>>>>> (5.905-5.925 GHz). We seek specific and detailed comment on this 
>>>>> proposal that can fully inform our decision."
>>>>>
>>>>> This is my detailed comment: when one wants to authorize a 
>>>>> particular technology on a particular band, then one would like to 
>>>>> make sure that technology is fully specified and understood.  It is 
>>>>> not the case now with 'C-V2X'.  It is a rather new term.  Is it 
>>>>> only the V2X part of 3GPP?  Is it the WiFi part of it?  Which spec 
>>>>> is meant more precisely?
>>>>>
>>>>> This is why, in return, I would like to comment and request to 
>>>>> publicize what more precisely is it meant by C-V2X?
>>>>>
>>>>> 8. "We seek comment on the available technical studies on C-V2X 
>>>>> that should inform our consideration of C-V2X, including any recent 
>>>>> studies
>>>>> that provide information about how C-V2X would operate in the 5.9 
>>>>> GHz band."
>>>>>
>>>>> Where are these technical studies?  Which ones?
>>>>>
>>>>> 9. "We first seek comment on whether to authorize C-V2X operations 
>>>>> in the 5.895-5.905 GHz band."
>>>>>
>>>>> My answer is no.  C-V2X is not specified, and it is a too wide term 
>>>>> that might mean too many things.  If C-V2X means the WiFi part of 
>>>>> 3GPP, and in particular 802.11-2016, in particular OCB mode, in 
>>>>> particular BSM messages, then the answer is yes, definitely.  This 
>>>>> would also allow RFC 8691 IPv6 over 802.11-OCB to work.
>>>>>
>>>>> 10. "Commenters should provide detailed justification to support 
>>>>> specific band plan options, including the types of services that 
>>>>> could or could not be delivered by unlicensed use or by 
>>>>> vehicularrelated
>>>>> services under each option."
>>>>>
>>>>> The type of the service that I need is the following: forming of 
>>>>> convoy of 3 self-driving cars - they use IPv6 over 802.11-OCB on 3 
>>>>> distinct 5.9GHz channels in order to minimize interference.   This 
>>>>> could not be delivered if only one channel was available for RFC 
>>>>> 8691 IPv6-over-802.11-OCB.  The demo is filmed and publicly 
>>>>> available on the web.
>>>>>
>>>>> 11. "(a) DSRCS Roadside Units (RSUs) operating in the 5895-5905 MHz 
>>>>> band must comply with the technical standard Institute of 
>>>>> Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11p-2010."
>>>>>
>>>>> This forgets that 802.11p is an old name and no longer in use.  The 
>>>>> users of this name neglect that IEEE 802.11-2016 is the current 
>>>>> spec, and which covers old 802.11p behaviour with an 'OCB' mode 
>>>>> (Outside the Context of a BSSID).  That is the standard that should 
>>>>> be referred to by this FCC Notice and not 802.11p.
>>>>>
>>>>> Additionally, I suggest to add the keyword 'IPv6'.  I suggest to 
>>>>> add a reference to RFC 8691 titled "Basic Support for IPv6 Networks 
>>>>> Operating Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set over IEEE Std 
>>>>> 802.11" which is publicly available on the web.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> its mailing list
>>>> its@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> its mailing list
>>> its@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> its mailing list
>> its@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
> 
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> its@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its