Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan, and a note I saw at 5GAA

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

To let you know a position I learn from 5GAA about proposal for 
allocation for Europe which might look like this.  IT is described at 
the following pdf in URL, of year 2021: 
https://5gaa.org/news/deployment-band-configuration-for-c-v2x-at-5-9-ghz-in-europe/


Alex

Le 26/01/2021 à 06:02, Chris Shen a écrit :
> Hi Alex,
>
> Thank you for your provided information.
>
> I scanned the FCC document you shared.
> I believe that the new change is to divide the previous ITS spectrum 
> into two parts:
>
>   * *5.850GHz - 5.895GHz:* *Unlicensed band (5MHz + 40MHz)*
>   * *5.895GHz - 5.925GHz:* *ITS band (30MHz, B47)*, *requiring to use
>     C-V2X (5G-V2X) at the end of this transition.*
>
> Two weeks ago, in the CCNC 2021, one of the keynote speakers from 
> Qualcomm shared some information about this latest transition.
> I share one of the slides in the keynote related to this transition here.
> ITS-band-transition-202101.png
>
> The whole slides can be found here:
> https://whova.com/xems/whova_backend/get_event_s3_file_api/?eventkey=d292f69137f1ea29bd6dd11e18771c3d6a6d97e93ef7a2ded585ac68b40d5e59&event_id=iccnc_202101&file_url=https://whova.com/xems/whova_backend/get_event_s3_file_api/?event_id=iccnc_202101&eventkey=d292f69137f1ea29bd6dd11e18771c3d6a6d97e93ef7a2ded585ac68b40d5e59&file_url=https://d1keuthy5s86c8.cloudfront.net/static/ems/upload/files/eevcg_Connected_Car_CCNC_2021_Lansford_Keynote.pdf 
> <https://whova.com/xems/whova_backend/get_event_s3_file_api/?eventkey=d292f69137f1ea29bd6dd11e18771c3d6a6d97e93ef7a2ded585ac68b40d5e59&event_id=iccnc_202101&file_url=https://whova.com/xems/whova_backend/get_event_s3_file_api/?event_id=iccnc_202101&eventkey=d292f69137f1ea29bd6dd11e18771c3d6a6d97e93ef7a2ded585ac68b40d5e59&file_url=https://d1keuthy5s86c8.cloudfront.net/static/ems/upload/files/eevcg_Connected_Car_CCNC_2021_Lansford_Keynote.pdf>
>
> Thanks!
> Chris
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 2:43 AM Alexandre Petrescu 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 
> wrote:
>
>     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
>     <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
>     <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
>     <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
>     <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
>     <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] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>
>     >>>>
>     >>>
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >>> its mailing list
>     >>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> its mailing list
>     >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > its mailing list
>     > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     its mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Yiwen (Chris) Shen, Ph.D. Candidate
>
> Homepage: https://chrisshen.github.io <https://chrisshen.github.io>
> IoT Lab: _http://iotlab.skku.edu <http://iotlab.skku.edu/>_
> Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, South Korea
> Mobile:[phone]
> Email: [e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>