Subject: [its] minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 2012, IETF 84, Vancouver

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:30:33 -0700

Dear participants to ITS,

Please find below minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 2012, IETF 84, 
Vancouver.

If modifications are needed then please ask.

Yours,

Alex

------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes of the meeting
bar BoF
ITS IP for Intelligent Transportation Systems
July 30th, 2012
IETF84 Vancouver, room Plaza C, Hotel Hyatt
19h30-20h30
slides at http://web.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~ryuji/its.html
email list: [email-masked] and https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
Contact organizers:
Alexandru Petrescu, [email-masked]
Georgios Karagiannis, [email-masked]

On average 10 people were present; list available upon request.

2 presented.

Note that during this meeting Georgios presented use cases on Traffic
efficiency and Infotainment vehicular applications. However, the use
cases on Traffic safety applications are presented during the previous
meeting, see:

http://imara.inria.fr/ietf-its

Comment received: from RtiV: it is important to identify how to get
information from the current ITS protocol solutions that are developed
in the ETSI ITS group, as well as in ISO CALM; the main comment is
that what we do in IETF should be at least somehow aligned with what
the other SDOs (ETSI ITS and ISCO CALM TC 204) are doing.  Currently,
at least one EU FP7 project (e.g., Drive C2X) is implementing and
verifying the protocol stacks that are specified in ISO CALM TC 204
and ETSI ITS; it would be important to wait to receive the results of
this verification.  This might lead to signifficant work that could be
in the IETF in the area of ITS to solve identified problems.

RtiV: the traffic safety application will probably not be part of the
solution space that could be worked out in ITS at IETF, since
currently this type of applications are not supported at IP networking
layer.

JS: mention that it would not help the progress if we only focus on
the items we presented, specifically some of the items could already
be done at IETF in different WGs (netext, 6man, dmm, manet).
IPv6-over-foo could be done in 6man; what is special to vehicular
networks that is not normally done in other groups?  Recommend to look
at the scenarios first, and then define the technologies that could be
used in the scenarios and afterwards how are they referring to
networking items/issues; based on this approach one could identify the
scenarios, technologies and networking items/issues and then write the
requirements that are accompanying these scenarios; These requirements
will then be representing/relating to the identified networked items.

About addressing within one vehicle:
- why dont you use ULAs?
- ULAs are good, and they need some seed to generate uniqueness and
also it would be good for some vehicular applications to revert back
from an address into an identifier of vehicle, and need of prefix.

About IPv6 over 802.11p: mention that IEEE 802.11p, recommends the use
of IEEE 802.11e for QoS differentiation, that can be used for message
differentiation, e.g., differentiate between emergency and
non-emergency messages.

About PMIP-NEMO:
- why do you want to do this, because already NETEXT does so.
- yes but do they do V2V2I as well? (current netext work seems
   pertinent to V2I exclusively).

Next steps:
- try to first get more support from the automotive industry and the
   SDOs, like ETSI ITS.
- try to acquire results from the verification/validation process of
   the implemented ISO CALM TC 204 and ETSI ITS protocol stacks from
   the Drive C2X FP7 project.
- identify scenarios, technologies and networking items that are
   aligned with the other SDOs, like ETSI ITS
- Based on these scenarios, technologies and networking items, derive
   the problem statement, requirements and goals that will need to be
   worked out by the ITS WG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------