Re: [its] charter ITS - proposed work items

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Jong-Hyouk,

Le 19/04/2016 14:46, Jong-Hyouk Lee a écrit :
> Plz see inline.
> --
> Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random
> Protocol Engineering Lab., Sangmyung University
>
> #email: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> #webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon
>
>> On Apr 19, 2016, at 9:35 PM, Alexandre Petrescu
>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 19/04/2016 14:16, Jong-Hyouk Lee a écrit :
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random
>>> Protocol Engineering Lab., Sangmyung University
>>>
>>> #email: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> #webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon
>>>
>>>> On Apr 19, 2016, at 8:52 PM, Alexandre Petrescu
>>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 19/04/2016 00:51, Jong-Hyouk Lee a écrit :
>>>>> Alex, -- Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and
>>>>> /dev/random Protocol Engineering Lab., Sangmyung University
>>>>>
>>>>> #email: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> #webpage:
>>>>> https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 19, 2016, at 2:12 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
>>>>>> <[e-mail]
>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 18/04/2016 17:56, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) a écrit :
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks, but I would need a title for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Solution for 1-hop IP V2V"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Solution to establish a 1-hop IP path between nearby moving
>>>>>> networks or between nearby moving networks and an immediate fixed
>>>>>> network"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Solution for Moving/Fixed Network Discovery and 1-hop Path
>>>>>> Establishment"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Solution for end-to-end path establishment in a star topology with
>>>>>> 1-hop fragile core and n-hop stable edges”?
>>>>>
>>>>> We may refer the ISO/TC204 liaison link:
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-its-7.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> As presented at the slide #13 above: ISO/TC204 calls "Direct
>>>>> communication between ITS stations”
>>>>
>>>> What is an "ITS Station"?  Can't we use "Mobile Router" instead?
>>>
>>> Alex, come on! How don’t you know the term used in ISO/TC204. ;)
>>
>> I know.  But at IETF we use the term "Mobile Router" extensively.
>>
>> I guess we need a Terminology section which says:
>> ITS Station == Mobile Router  == modem(s)
>
> Hmmmmm…I agree we need the terminology section in one document (I do not
> know which one would be good for the terminology section).

This is the current list.  Maybe in 1.

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"
2. "Threat Analysis for IP prefix exchanges in V2V and V2I
    Context"
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"
5. "Solution for direct communication between Mobile Routers"

> Anyway, what
> you said is wrong.
>
> There are 4 types of cooperative ITS stations: Personal ITS station
> (e.g., smartphone), Vehicle ITS station, Roadside ITS station, and
> Central ITS station. Then, for example, at a vehicle ITS station, a
> vehicle ITS station gateway, ITS station host, and ITS station router
> may exist.

ITS station gateway - does not sound correct order of words(?)

What's the difference between ITS station router and ITS station gateway?

> Those are connected each other on the ITS station internal
> network. The vehicle ITS station gateway is connected to ECUs on
> propriety in-vehicle network. The ITS station router is the one used to
> connect to other side (e.g., Roadside ITS station or Internet). So, the
> mobile router we are calling here at the IETF is the ITS station router
> at the ISO/TC 204 standardisations.

Makes sense.

Alex

>
> Cheers.
>
>>
>> because some car manufacturers use the term "modem" extensively even
>> today.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>>> Its need has been well presented and as expressed at the slides,
>>>>> ISO/TC204 says…"Generically applicable IETF standard is sought on
>>>>> this otherwise ISO will develop its own” Thierry would have a better
>>>>> idea. Let me him in this loop.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that the request of the development of a solution for direct
>>>>> communication between ITS stations has a long history and as you may
>>>>> know because of this request the mnpp protocol
>>>>> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jhlee-mext-mnpp-00) was developed
>>>>> as a result of FP7 EU project, Geonet (design and development of
>>>>> Geoneworking over IPv6). At that time, there was no place to make it
>>>>> as RFC at the IETF due to not matured ITS activities at the IETF.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sri
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Jong-Hyouk Lee <[e-mail]
>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>> Date:
>>>>>>> Monday, April 18, 2016 at 8:22 AM To: Sri Gundavelli
>>>>>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> Cc: Alexandre Petrescu
>>>>>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]
>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> #webpage:
>>>>>>> https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:51 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
>>>>>>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alex – Inline ..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To: Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]
>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> Cc: "[e-mail]
>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>