Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-12

"Is DSRCS a typo? (correct DSRC)."
-	No typo. DSRCS stands for “Dedicated Short Range Communication Service”

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandre Petrescu [mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2018 11:08 AM
To: François Simon <fygsimon@gmail.com>
Cc: its@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-12

I am adding this OBU ref for reference but I have a question:

Le 02/02/2018 à 11:23, François Simon a écrit :
[...]

> /On-Board unit (OBU). An On-Board Unit is a DSRCS transceiver that is

Is DSRCS a typo? (correct DSRC).

Alex

> normally mounted in or on a vehicle, or which in some instances may be 
> a portable unit. An OBU can be operational while a vehicle or person 
> is either mobile or stationary. The OBUs receive and contend for time 
> to transmit on one or more radio frequency (RF) channels. Except where 
> specifically excluded, OBU operation is permitted wherever vehicle 
> operation or human passage is permitted. The OBUs mounted in vehicles 
> are licensed by rule under part 95 of this chapter and communicate 
> with Roadside Units (RSUs) and other OBUs. Portable OBUs are also 
> licensed by rule under part 95 of this chapter. OBU operations in the 
> Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (UNII) Bands follow the 
> rules in those bands./- [CFR 90.7 - Definitions] - October 2010
> 
> *IPWAVE Issue***
> 
> **
> 
> /“The problem with the FCC definition of OBU is that it has no 
> relationship to IP.  Worse, that FCC definition has no indication that 
> it MAY use IP somehow.  And here we say that all OBUs must use IP.  Do 
> you see what I mean?”///
> 
> //
> 
> Correct; the OBU has no relationship with IP and is not intended to. 
> IP is a network protocol.  If an On-Board Unit (OBU) device is 
> required to exchange IP, it needs to be dealt in protocol(s) and/or 
> Management in higher layers similar to WAVE within the On-Board Equipment (OBE) .
> 
> /“Do you think FCC will mind if we use the term OBU in this draft to 
> mean something else?  I, and a colleague, think that FCC would not 
> mind.”///
> 
> //
> 
> Depending of the reader. If one is familiar with DSRC, OBU and RSU as 
> defined by FCC will come in mind. As far as I know, “OBU” and “RSU” 
> are not registered and could be used for other definitions (something 
> like
> “ATM”: Asynchronous Transfer Mode and Automatic Teller Machine😊). My 
> suggestion to the IPWAVE team is to use “OBE and RSE”.
> 
> This is my personal view as I donot represent any involved interest.  
> If any one has questions, let me know.
> 
> Francois Simon
> 
> Lojik Technologies
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> From: its [mailto:its-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandre 
> Petrescu
> 
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 10:08 AM
> 
> To: its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org> 
> 
> Subject: Re: [ipwave] Shepherd review of
> draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-12
> 
> 
> 
> Le 29/01/2018 à 15:52, François Simon a écrit :
> 
>> My comments arewithin the text*[Fygs.......]*.
> 
> [...]
> 
>> In the terminology section, the OBU term is mentioned to be defined
> 
>> outside the IETF. This is fine, but we have to provide a reference.
> 
>> And even with that, it would not harm to include some short 
>> definition
> 
>> to provide context. The RSU term is also defined outside the IETF and
> 
>> there is quite a lot of text provided (I think the relevant part is
> 
>> the last sentence, the one starting with "The difference between..."). 
> 
>> Both terms should be handled in the same way.
> 
>> 
> 
>> *[Fygs: The**definitions**was issued by the FCC 20 years ago.  I have
> 
>> already provided that information**and references multiple
> 
>> times.]***
> 
> The problem with the FCC definition of OBU is that it has no 
> relationship to IP.  Worse, that FCC definition has no indication that 
> it MAY use IP somehow.  And here we say that all OBUs must use IP.  Do 
> you see what I mean?
> 
> Do you think FCC will mind if we use the term OBU in this draft to 
> mean something else?  I, and a colleague, think that FCC would not mind.
> 
> Alex
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> its mailing list
> 
> its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org> 
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
> 