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

From: Jong-Hyouk Lee <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 18:36:14 +0200

Dear all,

I was not there, but give some comments. Kindly see inline:

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 3:30 AM, Alexandru Petrescu <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> 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<http://web.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~ryuji/its.html>
> email list: [email-masked] and https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/its<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.
>

Rather than Drive C2X, the EU FP7 project, ITSSv6, is more relevant to us
as we're Internet Protocol guys: http://project.inria.fr/itssv6/ As shown
at the ITSSv6 project site, the project aims at developing the IPv6 lTS
station stack supporting at least 802.11p and 2G/3G media types and
different ITS types (roadside, vehicle, central). Of course the IPv6 ITS
station stack confirms the existing standards from ETSI, ISO, and IETF. For
instance, for IP mobility, NEMO is used. The project's result is being
provided already to other ITS related to projects.

The ETSI and ISO are relying on the IETF especially for IP related
technologies (of course including IP mobility).

>
> 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.
>

True.

>
> 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.
>

Agree.

>
> 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).
>

If the purpose of developing PMIP-NEMO is only for that (i.e., supporting
V2V2I), I'm not sure whether it is enough. V2V communication between moving
vehicles (implementing Network Mobility) is needed even for NEMO.

>
> 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.
>

Do not forget "security and location privacy" when we reach to the steps
for the problem statement, requirements, and gap analysis.

Cheers.

> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> ______________________________**_________________
> its mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/its<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>
>

-- 
RSM Department, TELECOM Bretagne, France
Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random

#email: jonghyouk (at) gmail (dot) com
#webpage: http://sites.google.com/site/hurryon/

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 18:37:04 +0200

Dear all,

I have put the slides of the presentation on the same page as the one 
used for meeting in Paris, see 
http://imara.inria.fr/ietf-its#meeting_at_ietf83_-_paris

Comment to the minutes:

- since ISO TC204 WG16 (CALM group) and the ISO/ETSI ITS station 
reference architecture is mentioned (specification ISO 2127), I'm happy 
to announce you that the final version of the ISO standard on IPv6 
networking for ITS (ISO 21210) has just been published last month: 
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=46549. There are 
other IPv6-related standards under preparation at ISO and they are 
addressing some if not most of the issues discussed at the IETF meeting.

- the European project DriveC2X is not implementing nor testing anything 
about IPv6. However, other ITS-related projects do: FOTsis, ITSSv6, 
SCORE@F. Results are not available yet, but there will be demonstrations 
performed at the next ITS World Congress.

- while it is true that IPv6 is not considered by ISO/ETSI for 
time-critical road safety application, there are other road safety 
applications without strong time constraints that could benefit from 
IPv6. Some may even require IPv6, e.g. if routing through the Internet 
is required. The time critical safety applications that are considered 
at ETSI are indeed typical V2V applications (or V2R2V is the roadside is 
used as a forwarder) where Internet connectivity is not required.

- IPv6 is not considered for those time critical applications because 
IPv6 is mainly criticized for the size of the packet header (by ETSI 
solutions on GeoNetworking is not any better on this), and for the lack 
of QoS or Security (this is what they say).

- ISO is an organization that is working on architectures, taking into 
consideration legal and registration aspects for the various use cases. 
So, ISO knows what the needs and constraints are, thus I would assume 
any attempt to set up a working group to consider ISO needs first.

- indeed, a liaison between ISO and IETF is (tentatively) under setup, 
but is not progressing fast because of the difference in the nature of 
the two organizations (ISO is very formal, has strict procedures, and 
takes decision once every 6 months).

Regards,
Thierry.

On 01/08/12 03:30, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Minutes of the meeting
> bar BoF
> 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:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

---

From: Roland Bless <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:23:24 +0200

Hi,

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

Thanks for the minutes.

> from an address into an identifier of vehicle, and need of prefix.

ULAs are a nice match for the use within the internal on-board network,
since internal network communications should be independent of any
external addressing assignment scheme. External addresses for
communication with the environment (e.g., roadside units, other cars,
diagnosis units, and also the Internet) must be accepted as they
come and go. Therefore, usually you'll need some kind of security 
gateway that performs the translation between the ULAs and the
external addresses if required (another alternative is to multi-home
some of the internal devices, but this may be not so secure anymore...)
Last meeting I presented a potential approach how to generate ULAs
from a VIN (vehicle identification number). While using the VIN as input 
(or seed) for the address generation algorithm has some advantages, I 
don't think that it's a good idea to extract the VIN
back out of the address since it's mixing network address and ID
semantics.

Regards,
  Roland

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 17:33:57 +0000

Hi Thierry,

Thanks very much for the comments!

Below I am providing questions to some of your comments/statements:

> However, other ITS-related projects do: FOTsis, ITSSv6, SCORE@F. Results are not available yet, but 
> there will be demonstrations performed at the next ITS World Congress.

Georgios: Is it possible to inform us as soon as these results are available?

 > while it is true that IPv6 is not considered by ISO/ETSI for

Georgios: Can you please list/describe these road safety applications  that could benefit from IPv6?

> takes decision once every 6 months).

Georgios: Great news! When do you expect a decision from ISO on this issue?

Best regards,
Georgios

________________________________________
Van: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] namens Thierry Ernst [[email-masked]]
Verzonden: woensdag 1 augustus 2012 18:37
Aan: [email-masked]
Onderwerp: Re: [its] minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 2012, IETF 84, Vancouver

Dear all,

Comment to the minutes:

Regards,
Thierry.

---

From: "Seil Jeon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 03:15:47 +0100

Thanks Alex,

I think we need to take two tracks;

One would be identifying relevant works ITS should 
contribute through keeping in touch with other SDOs.

Second, as I said, extracting the potential items from the 
vehicular scenarios presented by Georgios. Regarding on 
that, I would try to find out.

Seil

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:30:33 -0700
  Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Please find below minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 
>2012, IETF 84, Vancouver.
> 
> email list: [email-masked] and

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:37:40 +0200

Dear Georgios, all,

> Georgios: Is it possible to inform us as soon as these results are available?
I will as soon as there is published material as some material will be 
made publicly available anyway.
> Georgios: Can you please list/describe these road safety applications  that could benefit from IPv6?
I give you an example: a vehicle detects black ice. Providing this 
information to other vehicles is two-fold:
- for the vehicles immediately following, this is a time-critical road 
safety information
- for the vehicles that will drive on the same portion of road in 5, 10, 
50 minutes, 1hour, 2hours later, it is also a road safety information, 
but not time-critical. Providing this information to these vehicles may 
involved either a traffic control ITS station and/or a roaside ITS 
station at some cross-road ahead. Depending on the technologies used, 
IPv6 may be needed (and I would advocate that using IPv6 will simplify 
the handling, whatever the scenarios, the radio technology and network 
setup).

> Georgios: Great news! When do you expect a decision from ISO on this issue?
This is on the plate since the IETF in Hiroshima :-( when I discussed 
with Olaf Kolkman for the fist time. It was said that ISO shall issue a 
letter; this took time for ISO to decide to send a letter, and even more 
to figure out who to send it to (to IETF or ISOC etc) etc. I didn't push 
too much on this because I was first expecting the final version of 
standard ISO 21210 to be published, and because I didn't see much 
interest from the IETF side. Now these two conditions are relaxed, so 
I'm going to push ISO to progress this with the IETF.

Regards,
Thierry

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:39:20 +0000

Dear Thierry,

Thank you for the useful information!

Best regards,
Georgios

________________________________________
Van: Thierry Ernst [[email-masked]]
Verzonden: donderdag 2 augustus 2012 14:37
Aan: Karagiannis, G. (EWI)
CC: [email-masked]
Onderwerp: Re: [its] minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 2012, IETF 84, Vancouver

Dear Georgios, all,

Regards,
Thierry