Re: [ipwave] which BSM?

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Which network/transport do BSMs use?

Alex

Le 16/04/2019 à 11:40, William Whyte a écrit :
> I don't fully understand why IPWAVE, which is about network / transport 
> protocols, needs to have an opinion about what form of BSM to use.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> William
> 
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:58 AM Alexandre Petrescu 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Sri,
> 
>     Thank you very much for the email.
> 
>     I would like to take this opportunity to discuss publicly a particular
>     topic in your email, that we already touched upon in private a few
>     months ago.
> 
>     I purposefully keep the other ideas of you out of this email, but I do
>     agree with very many of them.
> 
>     Le 16/04/2019 à 05:11, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) a écrit :
>     [...]
>      > From the point of view of vehicular safety, its about exchange of
>      > BSM (Basic Safety Messages) between vehicles as per SAEJ735
>      > standard.
> 
>     Sri, but there are at least three versions of BSM.
> 
>     Which BSM do you mean?
> 
>     Why SAE and not ISO?  Both have 'International' in their names.
> 
>     Why SAE 2016 and not SAE 2009?
> 
>     - SAEJ2735 version 2009 (free access),
>         (google hits "SAE J2735")
>     - SAEJ2735 version 2016 (paid access, cca 100 USD),
>         (google hits "SAE J2735")
>     - and the ISO/CEN/ETSI versions (free access):
>     https://www.tc278.eu/cits
>     https://standards.iso.org/iso/ts/19091/addgrp_c
> 
>     (remark I dont mention ETSI CAM, which is ITS safety in Europe).
> 
>     The three seem to be different in contents, to a few people.  Myself I
>     identified the first and second to be distinct.
> 
>     Ideally, safety would be just one standard, right?  Something like a
>     combination of all BSM versions with the CAM version running on a
>     transport that is common to all.
> 
>     A safe car would need to be able to understand all these CAM and BSM
>     versions; if it misses just one because of some syntax error, well,
>     safety would be at stake.
> 
>      > [...] and for very good reason IEEE WAVE standards did not bother to
>      > require IPv6 transport for carrying these messages.
> 
>     I doubt that reason.
> 
>     Alex
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     its mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> ---
> 
> I may have sent this email out of office hours. I never expect a 
> response outside yours.