Re: [ipwave] Platooning comments on draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-23

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

I agree with your comments, however, I got a reply from authors as they
talk on behave of WG, which I think it can be ok for the progress because
it is only informational draft, but your comments and mine and another
participant just recently sent, suggested some kind of adding-value to our
WG-draft while it is going through the submission to IESG process. In this
situation of IESG process, these comments should be involving with the WG
AD,  so I hope he can help us and reply to our comments/situations, or that
he considers/hears it.

For many of those reasons, I think we need a reply from the WG chair or AD.

Best Regards
AB

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 11:35 AM Alexandre Petrescu <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> About draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-23.
>
> As a side note, I would like to make a few comments on this draft with
> respect to its platooning discussion.
>
> I am not suggesting modifications to the draft, but as more time passes I
> think it is necessary to consider that the domain evolves.
>
> This draft is generally a good overview of vehicular networking.  But as
> the draft advances, the domain of activities performed outside the draft
> advances too.  In particular, in the discussions about V2V and platooning
> several significant evolvements were realized since the first parts of the
> draft were written.
>
> For example, the 'multi-brand truck' platooning in Europe ('ENSEMBLE') was
> demonstrated on 7 vehicles just a few days ago; earlier it was just 3
> trucks.  They use a mixture of bouncing signal (radar, camera) ACC, a newly
> proposed ETSI CAM extensions messages, but no IP; they also use a single
> antenna on the truck.
>
> Other platooning or convoy demonstrators were performed in recent years:
> one used 3 small automated vehicles in 'AUTOPILOT' with IPv6 and RTMAPS,
> entirely new (non-CAM) TCP payloads of IPv6 messages (non-CAM), and
> distinct front-rear antennas; it also used enhancements to RA messages for
> route propagation in a linear topology.  Another 'AUTOPILOT' demonstrator
> used 2 or 3 Toyotas using IP on cellular in order to 'form' the convoy;
> that communicated 'V2V' but a more complex 'V2V': at link layer it is V2I2V
> but at app layer it is V2V (car to cloud and back to car with a polling
> protocol).
>
> The descriptions of V2V and platooning in this draft do not mention the
> fact that a car might have distinct front-rear antennas.   In Figure 4:
> Multihop Internetworking between Two Vehicle Networks, one can see a single
> roof antenna in each car.  That is a possibility, and not the only one.  In
> other platoons there are two antennas in each car.
>
> Further, the draft doest not give reference to something else than than
> the US Truck Platooning of 'PATH'.  That is a very good earlier reference,
> but there is more references to give now, e.g. 'ENSEMBLE' and 'AUTOPILOT'.
> I have an URL handy for ENSEMBLE
> https://platooningensemble.eu/library/presentations but for 'AUTOPILOT' I
> cant really suggest an URL; the reason I cant suggest an URL for AUTOPILOT
> is not that it does not exist, but the manner in which it exists
> illustrates a signficant failure of the Certificate Authority concept as we
> know it (Let's Encrypt is good, but fails in some browsers).
>
> Alex
>
>
> Le 18/09/2021 à 03:15, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong a écrit :
>
> Hi Abdussalam,
> I tried to address the comments of Pascal Thubert as an Intdir reviewer
> during the IESG last call, especially RPL.
> I discussed the pros and cons of RPL for vehicular networks in the
> revision.
>
> This draft is waiting for the Writeup of our AD Erik Kline for the IESG
> review.
>
> Let's see the feedback from the IESG and reflect their comments
> on the draft.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best Regards,
> Paul
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 6:07 AM Abdussalam Baryun <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> Thank you for your efforts, so do you mean now it is pushed to IESG? if
>> yes then ok its good news for me and the WG.
>> We I don't need other work to be pushed as primarily in this WG-doc.
>>
>> comments below,
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 3:06 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Abdussalam,
>>> Thanks for your opinion.
>>>
>>
>> good comments and suggests, I would prefer that you commented on it.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The IPWAVE PS Draft has been made and updated by IPWAVE WG since October
>>> 2016, that is, for the last 5 years.
>>>
>>
>> yes 5 year for informational..... and I am following, so no problem we
>> need to push it by replies to get it through,
>>
>>>
>>> As the editor of this draft, I think that the coauthors as contributors
>>> and I have reflected the opinions of IPWAVE WG on this draft.
>>>
>>
>> not sure I understand your statement. I want that we progress in the
>> process for all docs (it is informational draft). Therefore, I supported
>> Alex's comment because reviewer has suggested some things that do not
>> reflect any of this WG.
>>
>> Regards
>> AB
>>
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>