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

Abdussalam Baryun <> Thu, 30 September 2021 09:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22D6C3A0A73; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 02:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gktr00d6_Q88; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 02:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5C013A0A6D; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 02:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id q127-20020a1ca785000000b0030cb71ea4d1so3869141wme.1; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 02:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xVWBbmPjOUfRvDPP1Lkrm/ADWVMQhkCmXRao9SLCOBQ=; b=oKQDLw45aF35/fQhhpiCI8VB+NYPilofrC7/76KeuuttKge+fSO9mJR91CvH/K8ilY 1JSzEMTGAO5VlbcmrFeO9huLc64VUZFTjVeCAewpLIi45Nq4siBH72cNE5KOSyO4bhLk Cl6XSdNCG//rOjO+q1yNxpVnhevWR064HVykEVxZ0Z0dK8Nvst8+50d52ntjZWf2Xp+C 74ZTfL+RljKcHJPliyPPq2JGSSIzUUvJ9mc1zHKr285BKwdQ5zIvvm51dwxPuBznOINC j4LBnNOjI08o6SbDg2KAYEu5Ix+Xi+KKtzFJKVvu566XDaUenCvQ0Gw9KAPRUrrFTMuh oVug==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xVWBbmPjOUfRvDPP1Lkrm/ADWVMQhkCmXRao9SLCOBQ=; b=zVHbSe65GiyyawiykV8keYBGbafLFku8ACqiRYe2bRpk1JkCAqnMFBQEPyN/Cvxsjy mjGEQOgqlI6/Df1KAsa6K4r7Pd1nyuI9ibQKsjmrMTKzKogKl08LAlY7jj1QKsBgCrk4 beB7lMiEOyGlweAi41wRGU9I3WMdOZ7LXZb7FNTNOBBrohZNBHdDvt5vqivZXnNwOTC/ Mo7mcynV6FvarsfUSG3UZ6OJbIGW3xtXI912xzciKsD4kgGbs058MotkcrH2fBuXnR52 KCeZhzOTdT5MMiA1Mc7siXNy4OuecjQtP/bauFimdSU5bpQWQ/OIJlWKx4IzlLWEeXgj 62zg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532D4RjJLgGpf8p0039NCZZV9x0q1oXgJ53dVob0Pb2HO5cTlTGO D9aL12EcwjB4HI7FUvJzraToF0EsEe064NE5zSU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyWMkARC6ATqwFyN4jQb1lavzfCXvGgQqZVBMQxK5jZ90zdEYnCv6rKRh4xr0VtgrmXafS32GOfKg84j9sNDm8=
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c923:: with SMTP id h3mr4491656wml.28.1632995482561; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 02:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 11:51:24 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <>
Cc: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <>, its <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a86eff05cd33631b"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Platooning comments on draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-23
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPWAVE - IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG at IETF <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 09:51:34 -0000

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

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 11:35 AM Alexandre Petrescu <> 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
> 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 <
>> 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 <
>>> 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