Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

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
>>>> [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