Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 ETSI CAM and IP

[John Kenney <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex,

Without addressing the main point you are making, I point out simply that
the BSM is not an IEEE 1609 datagram (it is an SAE J2735 message), and I
agree with William Whyte's comment in another thread that "MAY NOT" is
ambiguous (could mean shall not or might not).

Best Regards,
John


On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00
> ETSI CAM and IP
>
> It has been commented, that to the best of one's reading, the
> ETSI ITS documents do not specify what is the protocol that should be
> used to encapsulate CAMs.  This leads to wonder whether or not IP can be
> used to transport CAMs, and, if not - why not?
>
> The ETSI documents having been reviewed are the following:
> ETSI TS 102 637-2
> ETSI EN 302 665
>
> In this draft, the old text is the following:
>
>> D.2. Non IP Communications
>>
>> In IEEE 1609 and ETSI ITS, safety-related communications CANNOT be
>> used with IP datagrams. For example, Basic Safety Message (BSM, an
>> IEEE 1609 datagram) and Cooperative Awareness Message (CAM, an ETSI
>> ITS-G5 datagram), are each transmitted as a payload that is preceded
>> by link-layer headers, without an IP header.
>>
>
> I propose the following new text:
>
>> D.2. Non IP Communications
>>
>> In IEEE 1609 and ETSI ITS, safety-related communications MAY NOT be
>> used with IP datagrams. For example, Basic Safety Message (BSM, an
>> IEEE 1609 datagram), are each transmitted as a payload that is preceded
>> by link-layer headers, without an IP header.
>>
>
> (remark "MAY NOT" instead of CANNOT, and CAM absence).
>
> Alex
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>
>


-- 
John Kenney
Director and Principal Researcher
Toyota InfoTechnology Center, USA
465 Bernardo Avenue
Mountain View, CA 94043
Tel: [phone]. Mobile: [phone]