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
- [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Vehicl… Russ Housley
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Jérôme Härri
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Jérôme Härri
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Alexandre Petrescu
- [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan (was: Re: FCC… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan (was: Re:… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan fygsimon@gmail.com
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Chris Shen
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan, and a no… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan, and a no… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan - related… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan - related… Alexandre Petrescu