[ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 ETSI CAM and IP

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00
ETSI CAM and IP

It has been commented, that to the best of one's reading, the
ETSI ITS documents do not specify what is the protocol that should be
used to encapsulate CAMs.  This leads to wonder whether or not IP can be
used to transport CAMs, and, if not - why not?

The ETSI documents having been reviewed are the following:
ETSI TS 102 637-2
ETSI EN 302 665

In this draft, the old text is the following:
> D.2. Non IP Communications
>
> In IEEE 1609 and ETSI ITS, safety-related communications CANNOT be
> used with IP datagrams. For example, Basic Safety Message (BSM, an
> IEEE 1609 datagram) and Cooperative Awareness Message (CAM, an ETSI
> ITS-G5 datagram), are each transmitted as a payload that is preceded
> by link-layer headers, without an IP header.

I propose the following new text:
> D.2. Non IP Communications
>
> In IEEE 1609 and ETSI ITS, safety-related communications MAY NOT be
> used with IP datagrams. For example, Basic Safety Message (BSM, an
> IEEE 1609 datagram), are each transmitted as a payload that is preceded
> by link-layer headers, without an IP header.

(remark "MAY NOT" instead of CANNOT, and CAM absence).

Alex