Re: [Raw] Proposed RAW charter

<> Thu, 16 January 2020 08:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62E2C120024 for <>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 00:31:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 zuCGP4rpnoL6 for <>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 00:31:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D5F4120019 for <>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 00:31:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id 00G8UEvd006526 for <>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 03:31:26 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=smtpout1; bh=R+QK7C+RTMKZbGWeX/Arvda9oINVCUlqfTBVvueT0ss=; b=XhNIS805qAaxGiz/ZZAnefc3Yvu3LgsTdQO7ZFRLHTxTtbYpm6GoCCYQNfzJ6QQPk1aG zB3pGCnBx/qyubVbUPZQDekbDNXy0ZGjawF26GqAMav0WiVHBsss6G3wgkBsRiaqn6bx sCaibQn+H5xyrfuGaFkdM+J4FUeh9tx3+U2LH0fwuLnhE2NnVllvZh/9B5jax1MtS/BO aZxGewFbzWaV2RUc05IzqbZWd0PTP0mzi54jAy6Ncyi+gPDkManWpii7PS4MxQWHnvnO Q8kzW1wXfTZAWuTDYl2fjYq8I0UU9qh4T9QjwvfMdJ0N1PvI/cni7dnqiVCK2gUHSIe9 bg==
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTP id 2xjjghgd9s-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 03:31:26 -0500
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id 00G8RvNl076243 for <>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 03:31:25 -0500
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTP id 2xjk0ms4v7-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for <>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 03:31:25 -0500
X-LoopCount0: from
X-PREM-Routing: D-Outbound
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,349,1549951200"; d="scan'208,217";a="472454252"
From: <>
To: <>, <>, <>, <>, <>
Thread-Topic: [Raw] Proposed RAW charter
Thread-Index: AdXKVnmbULuYyq59Tr2J+ZIiJo18pwAo8uqAAADSjQAABpqKgABJoHqAAAI1poA=
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 08:31:21 +0000
Message-ID: <009a01d5cc47$5328ba20$f97a2e60$>
References: <> <> <015f01d5cafd$9043d980$b0cb8c80$> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_009a01d5cc475328ba20f97a2e60dellcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.572 definitions=2020-01-16_02:2020-01-16, 2020-01-15 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=961 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 clxscore=1015 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1910280000 definitions=main-2001160072
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1910280000 definitions=main-2001160072
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Raw] Proposed RAW charter
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: reliable and available wireless <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 08:31:32 -0000

Understood and thank you for the clarification.

My comment was more general – are we limiting RAW to providing Reliable and Available IP Wireless services or are we looking at providing Reliable and Available Wireless whether the protocol is IP or something else.

I have a general concern that when it comes to small-payload IOT services, often an IP header over the air interface is very wasteful in terms of spectrum (ratio of header:payload).   This does not preclude the backhaul being IP but we already have a plethora of non-IP OTA solutions which could also benefit from work in RAW.


From: <>
Sent: 16 January 2020 07:28
Subject: AW: [Raw] Proposed RAW charter

Maybe I can clarify this a little below.

<DL> LDACS does not use IP.   A number of other systems where we need to create Reliable and Available Wireless paths do not use IP.   This limits the applicability of the technology.  Is it the PATH we wish to make Reliable and Available or the Protocol? </DL>
[deborah] This is on the Layer 3 aspect – input was that there was interest in having IP connectivity (draft-maeurer-raw-ldacs).

LDACS is indeed a layer 2 wireless technology, so it technically does not use IP over the wireless link for its own purposes (although it may use IP in the backhaul control plane connecting the ground stations). However, the point of developing LDACS is to have an aeronautical data link supporting (user plane) IPv6. Something that does not exist for air traffic control up to now. (Passenger entertainment networks are different, but not in the scope of LDACS).

This is also where RAW would help the aeronautical community. Discussing how IPv6 can be used reliably and available of wireless link(s) (which are LDACS and maybe satellite in our case, but might be other links for other use cases).

Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. (DLR)
German Aerospace Center
Institute of Communications and Navigation | Oberpfaffenhofen | 82234 Wessling | Germany

Dr. Thomas Gräupl
Telephone +49 8153 28 4218 |<><>