Re: [its] charter ITS

Hi Jong-Hyouk,

> I officially request that we should have a solution for IP prefix exchanges as a work item.

This is one specific approach. The description for the work item can be bit more generic.

Sri

From: Jong-Hyouk Lee <jonghyouk@gmail.com<mailto:jonghyouk@gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, April 18, 2016 at 8:22 AM
To: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com<mailto:sgundave@cisco.com>>
Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com<mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>>, "its@ietf.org<mailto:its@ietf.org>" <its@ietf.org<mailto:its@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [its] charter ITS - proposed work items

Hi Sri,

Just one comment regarding IP prefix exchanges. Plz see inline.
--
Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random
Protocol Engineering Lab., Sangmyung University

#email: jonghyouk@gmail.com<mailto:jonghyouk@gmail.com>
#webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon

On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:51 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgundave@cisco.com<mailto:sgundave@cisco.com>> wrote:

Alex - Inline ..

To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com<mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>>
Cc: "its@ietf.org<mailto:its@ietf.org>" <its@ietf.org<mailto:its@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [its] charter ITS - proposed work items

ITSers,

We work on a more rigorous ITS charter text.

Now we propose four work items:

1. "Problem statement for IP in V2V and V2I"
    including "IP addressing architecture for V2V and V2I"
    and including "Gap Analysis: IP protocols suited and gaps"
    and including "Use-cases for IP in V2V and V2I moving network to
                   nearby moving or fixed network"

[Sri] Agree. This is a good starting point. Use-Cases document is needed. On the Gap Analysis document, it should be stated as how the gaps are captured and in relation to what technology. Is it NEMO, MANET, some other protocols ?

2. "Threat Analysis for IP prefix exchanges in V2V and V2I context"

[Sri] If my starting point is #1, not sure how to read this ? Prefix exchanges appears more like a solution. In MANET there is exchange of prefixes, in NEMO we don't inject those prefixes and so I do not know if this work item is valid at this time.

You are right. That is a missing part. We need to have a solution for "IP prefix exchanges in V2V and V2I" The need of IP prefix exchanges is clear and well presented in PS documents for IP in V2V and V2I. Then, there are 2 documents already existing as below:

1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-00
2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jhlee-mext-mnpp-00

The above 2 documents are the early effort to establish IP direction communications between vehicles and also between a vehicle and a road side unit.

I officially request that we should have a solution for IP prefix exchanges as a work item.

Cheers!

3. "IP over DSRC (802.11-OCB)" typical IP-over-foo document[*],
    including connectivity in fast and asymmetric conditions, coverage
    area vs speed diagrams, below-IP congestion management.

4. "List of papers and _products_ using IP in V2V and V2I"

[Sri] Not clear what the deliverable is.

What do you think?

Please respond by next Monday, April 18th.

_______________________________________________
its mailing list
its@ietf.org<mailto:its@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its