Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 10 July 2020 12:43 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E71483A0C29 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 05:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.671
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.671 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k29pvUr_8nN4 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 05:43:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE9B33A0C28 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 05:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 06ACh0hC040655 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:43:00 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 2906A2050A2 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:43:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E9F32050D5 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:43:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.11.240.213] ([10.11.240.213]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 06ACgxxF012646 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:42:59 +0200
To: its@ietf.org
References: <EED81985-1D4C-41B2-8CCA-A46B96390A18@vigilsec.com> <1c70cda6-050b-e018-6786-abd99281b6bb@gmail.com> <CADnDZ8-opM3O5U7-C8v+KYTX6-ruQzajRZgDWzzZtXRnJt575Q@mail.gmail.com> <ad3ccd6c-cd99-c47a-d0df-bfb94b5ab40f@gmail.com> <CADnDZ8_wwa91-5UWeqxhJy=nMBp8kwu4ZvfxsAojZCY9DG8jSA@mail.gmail.com> <92850021-914f-ab6a-f8d2-ab793179fa1b@gmail.com> <00d601d5b4ee$01cc9ae0$0565d0a0$@eurecom.fr> <47f48fca-07b9-5657-4cb5-54cc5d63d2e3@gmail.com> <b9ea5f34-0129-614b-d644-0ab95437f6ac@gmail.com> <7664b128-91b7-8fef-1e13-b681b45b1958@gmail.com> <61f9d6f6-1e37-6e15-3a48-48e7047f0fe1@gmail.com> <CADnDZ88tsTvRdr4_jpWxnT0X_3ihTJ8=783-6M-kFNS+uMnA3Q@mail.gmail.com> <b7d40c34-ccdd-2617-0598-62a4b7faf994@gmail.com> <7f2e764a-8d75-a3a8-cd4e-a4406dd8e321@gmail.com> <038fea3b-cdd3-dbe3-04f9-fbe873661cf1@gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0e29e730-e62a-f864-ad10-81f5e524bf33@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:42:59 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <038fea3b-cdd3-dbe3-04f9-fbe873661cf1@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/y27ZwT5aRgwnSte1TgI8oXFqW_o>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPWAVE - IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG at IETF <its.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/its/>
List-Post: <mailto:its@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 12:43:04 -0000

Hello,

I would like to know wheher FCC advanced well while seeking to promote 
innovation in the 5.9GHz band?

In particular, is now IPv6 allowed to run on the control channel 
5895-5905MHz on 802.11 in OCB mode?

The URL to the FCC document stating that seeking of promotion of 
innovation is this, but I cant figure out a conclusion of it(?)
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-promote-innovation-59-ghz-band-0

Alex

Le 24/01/2020 à 15:11, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
> for information, the filing is now visible at
> https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10115292918548
> 
> 
> Le 15/01/2020 à 21:34, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
>> I submitted the comments that are shown in the attached file.
>>
>> It is possible to submit more comments, maybe with more help from 
>> interested parties, or to clarify other things.  It's the same URL 
>> https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> Le 15/01/2020 à 21:11, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
>>> 6. "In support of its waiver request, 5GAA submitted studies of using 
>>> 10- and 20-megahertz-wide channels for C-V2X that found that allowing 
>>> operation on a single 20-megahertz channel will support the introduction
>>> of services “that [will] enable many important safety applications, 
>>> such as red light warnings, basic safety messages, emergency alerts, 
>>> and others, to enhance traffic systems and operations.”"
>>>
>>> My comment is the following: one would benefit from considering 
>>> carefully the statements from 5GAA.  Depending how it is interpreted 
>>> it might be advantageous or not.  For my part, I do think that some 
>>> of the claims of 5GAA in some trials make confusions about cellular 
>>> technology and DSRC technology.  I do think that there is at least 
>>> one publicly demonstrated trial under the banner of 5GAA which uses 
>>> DSRC but it claims cellular technology.
>>>
>>> That said, with respect to the use of the term "C-V2X": it is not 
>>> very clear throughout the FCC Notice whether C-V2X means the 
>>> traditional traits of cellular technology that distinguishes it from 
>>> WiFi (i.e. use cellular frequencies, use a SIM, specific codecs, 
>>> mandatory base station, etc.) or otherwise it means some more generic 
>>> "3GPP" technology.  The only place where C-V2X is defined more 
>>> properly is when, on page 37, it refers to 3GPP Release 14.  There is 
>>> no pointer to a particular 3GPP Rel 14 document.  This lets open the 
>>> imagination to think that it might mean the WiFi aspects of 3GPP.  
>>> 3GPP is known to spec things by stepping into WiFi domain very often, 
>>> even though in practice there are no 3GPP deployments on WiFi - and 
>>> that, since 3G onwards :-)  In this sense, it might be that 'C-V2X' 
>>> already means something from WiFi, and why not C-V2X to mean 
>>> 802.11-OCB and BSM messages?
>>>
>>> This lack of precision in mentioning "C-V2X" is what adds a lot to 
>>> the confusion - should one accept C-V2X in 5.9GHz bands?  Well yes, 
>>> provided 'C-V2X' means a WiFi issued by 3GPP by copy/pasting IEEE. 
>>> Well no, if 'C-V2X' means a pure cellular interface with a SIM card 
>>> or software, mandatory base station, cellular codecs and specific 
>>> expensive specific IPR from well-known particular companies.
>>>
>>> 7. "With this Notice, we propose that ITS in this band continue to 
>>> provide safety of life services. We seek comment on this proposal."
>>>
>>> This is my comment, and backed by a colleague from IETF: on which 
>>> channel should we run IPv6-over-OCB? (RFC 8691)
>>>
>>> 8. "C-V2X in the 5.905-5.925 GHz band. Specifically, we propose to 
>>> authorize C-V2X operations in the upper 20 megahertz of the band 
>>> (5.905-5.925 GHz). We seek specific and detailed comment on this 
>>> proposal that can fully inform our decision."
>>>
>>> This is my detailed comment: when one wants to authorize a particular 
>>> technology on a particular band, then one would like to make sure 
>>> that technology is fully specified and understood.  It is not the 
>>> case now with 'C-V2X'.  It is a rather new term.  Is it only the V2X 
>>> part of 3GPP?  Is it the WiFi part of it?  Which spec is meant more 
>>> precisely?
>>>
>>> This is why, in return, I would like to comment and request to 
>>> publicize what more precisely is it meant by C-V2X?
>>>
>>> 8. "We seek comment on the available technical studies on C-V2X that 
>>> should inform our consideration of C-V2X, including any recent studies
>>> that provide information about how C-V2X would operate in the 5.9 GHz 
>>> band."
>>>
>>> Where are these technical studies?  Which ones?
>>>
>>> 9. "We first seek comment on whether to authorize C-V2X operations in 
>>> the 5.895-5.905 GHz band."
>>>
>>> My answer is no.  C-V2X is not specified, and it is a too wide term 
>>> that might mean too many things.  If C-V2X means the WiFi part of 
>>> 3GPP, and in particular 802.11-2016, in particular OCB mode, in 
>>> particular BSM messages, then the answer is yes, definitely.  This 
>>> would also allow RFC 8691 IPv6 over 802.11-OCB to work.
>>>
>>> 10. "Commenters should provide detailed justification to support 
>>> specific band plan options, including the types of services that 
>>> could or could not be delivered by unlicensed use or by vehicularrelated
>>> services under each option."
>>>
>>> The type of the service that I need is the following: forming of 
>>> convoy of 3 self-driving cars - they use IPv6 over 802.11-OCB on 3 
>>> distinct 5.9GHz channels in order to minimize interference.   This 
>>> could not be delivered if only one channel was available for RFC 8691 
>>> IPv6-over-802.11-OCB.  The demo is filmed and publicly available on 
>>> the web.
>>>
>>> 11. "(a) DSRCS Roadside Units (RSUs) operating in the 5895-5905 MHz 
>>> band must comply with the technical standard Institute of Electrical 
>>> and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11p-2010."
>>>
>>> This forgets that 802.11p is an old name and no longer in use.  The 
>>> users of this name neglect that IEEE 802.11-2016 is the current spec, 
>>> and which covers old 802.11p behaviour with an 'OCB' mode (Outside 
>>> the Context of a BSSID).  That is the standard that should be 
>>> referred to by this FCC Notice and not 802.11p.
>>>
>>> Additionally, I suggest to add the keyword 'IPv6'.  I suggest to add 
>>> a reference to RFC 8691 titled "Basic Support for IPv6 Networks 
>>> Operating Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set over IEEE Std 
>>> 802.11" which is publicly available on the web.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> its mailing list
>> its@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> its@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its