Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-networking-survey?

[Rex Buddenberg <[e-mail]>]

Tony,

IP.  The telemetering of data to the hospital is an example of at least
a three-segment internetwork.  Terrestrial WAN, radio-WAN and LANs.  In
my book that makes a pretty good case for IP.  (The emergency services
comms folks tend to view the 'backhaul', the terrestrial WAN, as an
afterthought.)

Different.  Volatile topology and security.  

On Wed, 2017-06-21 at 07:55 -0700, Tony Li wrote:
> Rex,
> 
> What in this use case requires IP?  More specifically, what’s
> required beyond simple connectivity?
> 
> We need specificity if use cases are to be constructive.
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> > 
> > On Jun 20, 2017, at 9:18 PM, Rex Buddenberg <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > Paul,
> > 
> > Use case:
> > 
> > ---------------------------
> > 
> > Instrumented emergency vehicle use case
> > 
> > Emergency vehicles include ambulances, fire engines, police
> > cruisers,
> > snowplows and more.  The reason for isolating this use case is that
> > this class of vehicles shares the communications requirements of
> > all
> > vehicles but has some more and more extreme requirements.  In many
> > cases, meeting the requirements for emergency vehicles will result
> > in
> > exceeding the requirements for the family sedan.
> > 
> > Scenario.  
> > 
> > Consider an ambulance with one or more casualties inside.  These
> > patients will have vital signs monitors attached to them.  The
> > ambulance itself needs to deliver the casualties to a
> > hospital.  The
> > ambulance, of course, must navigate in traffic – a characteristic
> > of
> > most scenarios but with urgency attached.
> > 
> > - a LAN within the vehicle has the patient monitors attached to
> > it.  Additionally, the ambulance attendant would need at least one
> > attachment in order to speak with an emergency room doctor.  The
> > requirement is to telemeter the casualties' vital signs to the
> > hospital
> > and over-shoulder advice from the ER doctor to the attendant.
> > 
> > - the driver needs communications with dispatching to telemeter
> > track
> > data (position), receive dispatching orders, telemeter vehicle data
> > (e.g. gas tank level).
> > 
> > - the ambulance needs to communicate with other vehicles on the
> > road.  Collision avoidance, right-of-way warning (i.e. siren),
> > traffic
> > light control.
> > 
> > While using an ambulance as example, all emergency vehicles have
> > similar needs.
> > 
> > 
> > Requirements distillation:
> > 
> > Security.  All data in the above illustrations must be verifiably
> > authentic.  Some data (such as the patient vital signs) requires
> > confidentiality.  In some cases (e.g. police car stakeout) low
> > probability of detection of the radio-WAN communications is
> > required.  
> > 
> > Availability.  Most automotive applications require high
> > availability
> > (Ao defined as up time divided by total time), emergency services
> > are
> > the most demanding.  Typically four 9s.  This requirement cannot
> > usually be met with a single radio-WAN; multiple WAN interfaces on
> > the
> > routers required, with the appropriate protocol capabilities.
> > 
> > -------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Not a formally published paper, but the draft doesn't require that.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 2017-06-21 at 06:56 +0900, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi Rex,
> > > As you mentioned, the revision of this draft will include the
> > > papers
> > > for use cases that are based on
> > > vehicular networking as follows:
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----
> > > -----------
> > > Hwang T and Jeong J., "SANA: Safety-Aware Navigation
> > > Application for pedestrian protection in vehicular networks",
> > > In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference
> > > on internet of vehicles (IOV), Chengdu, China, 19–21
> > > December 2015, pp.127–138. Switzerland: Springer
> > > 
> > > Kim J, Jo Y and Jeong J., "Design and evaluation of a
> > > smartphone-based alarming system for pedestrian safety
> > > in vehicular networks", In: Proceedings of the 2nd international
> > > conference on internet of vehicles (IOV), Chengdu,
> > > China, 19–21 December 2015, pp.221–233. Switzerland:
> > > Springer.
> > > 
> > > Shen Y, Jeong J, Oh T, et al., "CASD: a framework of
> > > context-awareness safety driving in vehicular networks",
> > > In: Proceedings of the 30th international conference on
> > > advanced information networking and applications
> > > workshops—device centric cloud (DC2), Crans-Montana,
> > > Switzerland, 23–25 March 2016, pp.252–257.
> > > 
> > > Koukoumidis E, Peh L-S and Martonosi M. "SignalGuru:
> > > leveraging mobile phones for collaborative traffic signal
> > > schedule advisory", In: Proceedings of the 9th international
> > > conference on mobile systems, applications, and services
> > > (MobiSys), Washington, DC, 28 June–1 July 2011,
> > > pp.127–140. New York: ACM.
> > > 
> > > Jeong J, Jeong H, Lee E, et al., "SAINT: self-adaptive
> > > interactive navigation tool for cloud-based vehicular traffic
> > > optimization", IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 2016;
> > > 65(6):
> > > 4053–4067.
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----
> > > -----------
> > > 
> > > Thanks for your comments.
> > > 
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Paul
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:59 AM, Rex Buddenberg <buddenbergr@gmai
> > > l.co
> > > m> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Russ, et al,
> > > > 
> > > > As a _survey_, this ID is fine.  There is value in simply
> > > > cataloging
> > > > the somewhat scattered efforts in one place.  So I'm thinking
> > > > we
> > > > should
> > > > adopt as 'state of the art in the field'.  So I guess I'm ^ vis
> > > > adoption.
> > > >      But there are no use cases in the ID itself, only some of
> > > > the
> > > > references.  Therefore the ID does not meet the charter
> > > > call.  ...
> > > > at
> > > > least not yet.
> > > >      Further, there doesn't seem to be much of a sorting model
> > > > or
> > > > taxonomy.  What the ID does not cover (and was not Jeong's
> > > > intent)
> > > > is
> > > > what is needed but not present.  The use cases should lead to a
> > > > taxonomy and eventually an architecture -- should those
> > > > signposts
> > > > be
> > > > present?  Or is this a proper subject for agenda bashing
> > > > external
> > > > to
> > > > this draft?
> > > > 
> > > > b
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 09:59 -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > The IPWAVE WG charter calls for the group to publish an
> > > > Informational
> > > > > 
> > > > > document:
> > > > > 
> > > > >    This group will work on an informational document
> > > > >    that will explain the state of the art in the field and
> > > > describe
> > > > > 
> > > > >    the use cases that will use IPv6 in order to focus the
> > > > > work of
> > > > >    the group.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-
> > > > networking-
> > > > > 
> > > > > survey
> > > > > as the starting point for this deliverable?
> > > > > 
> > > > > See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jeong-ipwave-vehic
> > > > > ular
> > > > -net
> > > > > 
> > > > > working-survey/
> > > > > 
> > > > > Russ
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > its mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > its mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
> > > > 
> > >