Re: [ipwave] RSU minor textual issue

François Simon <fygsimon@gmail.com> Thu, 18 May 2017 16:28 UTC

Return-Path: <fygsimon@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 78FB7127180 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 May 2017 09:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 6vCSXWJPU3fv for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 May 2017 09:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x229.google.com (mail-qt0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE7E912951C for <its@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 May 2017 09:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x229.google.com with SMTP id f55so38323776qta.3 for <its@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 May 2017 09:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=BK5YX5czRitb8Iddw62cj0EiPGLTPUwzl0k4220U4DA=; b=A09tYVrJsEpajFpcoR/QZxvF0KYSi1OB4Yj+QD3BDY8UjcwrnilHnNnyCKmh66A6XU 6bMB8zh2unjVbLqjfrKjRaM/M9oOJQcghoQ1M8tuVv7fZwyLfxT1vr5AxF/GeQW7tS1E O6poDSHfDy4GYJ2JRF55wsTUK5TM13x/hMHesijx11VcF08j8w1mpABY3S3cWe3jT8Ne 9r4shot9xVvCptl7zm/hxJ10iPDr/geTlo9RJkNL/Bdc2nDPuN3T4tfwnNhSXJBbdC0m ZwZsaGFiXuET4WimfV8PTFTyI2XJTUJOveavLYxUqu5OCBU+Z/Sg4xF/BD4W7L2nTAN2 p0pQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=BK5YX5czRitb8Iddw62cj0EiPGLTPUwzl0k4220U4DA=; b=bWJ6sCeCz5sFHz9HB2p5iZfYt5I06nOcIdjZ4hIlpVJCR41Tmi5PTiM17IjBq2996s VZsMtCDSnxjmmdXNs2NvN+DTUH556tF/XIfkvSrCnmYDpoD1E+ZVKSc8s6GESxy5ZQ9/ 5B8uHbCzRUQgDWp6hMypZzTB+Twp1/TOnSzxQBrbu5QFUtdQSJeJgs38TMmKmnIA5SwZ iWI3Kp0ZXJRPnQt7Sgg2kfWv0bdKNRSqCAwTjFsyyyU0kFFb+D7mm6YigMrslrO9OFwh UHJTDgZKVr+w/QUN91HocYIGsVigAgaqZeSKCCudga8tL19SxnKswtLlm9V9rpxkNmlz gXOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAArMDu9wsOM1ZZsbBYsWo5alLvJVk9n9TwDN8ohJ3PFOUKXB7r z16q0R9MShnR+Ira
X-Received: by 10.200.42.252 with SMTP id c57mr5063709qta.282.1495124623857; Thu, 18 May 2017 09:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FrancoisPC (pool-108-48-182-247.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [108.48.182.247]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g66sm3962310qkb.55.2017.05.18.09.23.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 18 May 2017 09:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: François Simon <fygsimon@gmail.com>
To: 'Russ Housley' <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: its@ietf.org, fygsimon@gmail.com
References: <b7d0f246-da90-ac56-db69-40e9e929900d@gmail.com> <3916AFEC-80E9-469F-A2D7-F66010AAB23C@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <3916AFEC-80E9-469F-A2D7-F66010AAB23C@vigilsec.com>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 12:23:41 -0400
Message-ID: <019201d2cff3$1d415870$57c40950$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0193_01D2CFD1.96322970"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQLaRBK88xykj8VYhlOq8uhoK7bq9wLPbpucn9Tf76A=
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/mHSWLlIccRQBTZor3Z0aqMDXEAY>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] RSU minor textual issue
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 18 May 2017 16:28:40 -0000

In the US, RSUs ARE NOT ROUTERS. There are logical boundaries between RSU
and functions accessing the infrastructure (when required):

 

FHWA Definition: 

“1.6. Roadside Units

DSRC enables communication between vehicles and roadside equipment, but does
not

generate data necessary to provide warnings and advisories from
infrastructure to drivers. To

support V2I applications, DSRC must be integrated with existing traffic
equipment, such as

Signal Controllers and backhaul connections to Traffic Management Centers
(TMCs). DSRC

devices that serve as the demarcation component between vehicles and other
mobile devices

and existing traffic equipment will be referred to DSRC Roadside Units (RSU)
in this document.”

 

RSU - A connected device that is only allowed to operate from a fixed
position

(which may in fact be a permanent installation or from temporary

equipment brought on-site for a period of time associated with an

incident, road construction, or other event). Some RSEs may have

connectivity to other nodes or the Internet.

 

 

 

From: its [mailto:its-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:34 AM
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: its@ietf.org
Subject: [ipwave] RSU minor textual issue

 

 

On May 18, 2017, at 5:39 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
<alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

OLD:



RSU: Road Side Unit. An IP router equipped with, or connected to, at
least one interface that is 802.11 and that is an interface that
operates in OCB mode.


A comment was made stating that an RSU is not a router, and that an RSU
may be connected to a router via an interface, e.g. Ethernet, to access
the infrastructure if required.

But I think that some Road Side Units are indeed IP routers and they
access the infrastructure and the Internet.  This is an important point
when using the IP protocol - be connected.

I think I keep that text that way at this time.

End issue.

 

Alex:

 

Some RSUs will be routers, but others will not.  For example, an RSU that
sends messages to vehicles about foggy conditions does not need to be a
router.  I think the definition should allow both cases.

 

Russ