Subject: [its] What do we need to make ITS WG go forward?

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:54:50 +0100

Hi All,

I was interested in this group but not sure where are we so far. Is
there progress, or is there issues/efforts that need to be completed
and volunteered.

AB

---

From: Nabil Benamar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:27:30 +0000

Hi All,

I'm still interested in this list and want to join voices previously heard
to make it a working group. So what should we exactly do, to achieve this
goal ?

2013/1/26 Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>

> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>

-- 
*
*
*تحياتي ، **Cordialement, Regards*
*
*
*
*
*نبيل بنعمرو Nabil Benamar*
Professor of computer sciences
Simulation and Modelisation Laboratory
Human Sciences Faculty of Meknes
Moulay Ismail* *University*
Meknes, Morocco
*GSM: * *+ 212 6 70832236
http://nabilbenamar.com/

*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:34:24 +0100

Hi Nabil,

I think we already done some steps but not sure how far now. We will
need to propose the WG and provide the WG charter, as use cases and
work to be done in this group. This charter needs to be approved by
the IESG. I have not attended the last meeting so not sure about the
status now,

AB

---

From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 04:02:58 +0000

All, 

This is just one opinion, but I'd like to understand why ITS would need its own IETF group. The work here is the same (IMO) as what is taking place in MANET. I would vote that this work be taken up in MANET. 

Regards,
Stan

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:00:29 +0100

Hello,

Sorry for the late reply.

We need support from actors in the vehicle industry, vehicle equipment
manufacturers, OEMs,  extra-IETF SDOs specialized in vehicular
communications  (e.g. ETSI ITS), nationwide and EU projects and research
organizations interested in vehicular communications, and more.

I still consider realization of work here.  At my organization we have
several activities for IP vehicular communications.

Prefix exchange for V2V communications was presented in manemo bar bof
(long ago).  This could be one single topic on which a WG could be
formed (there are at least two participants ready to put effort in
finalizing a document).

ND-Prefix-Delegation for vehicles was drafted and presented to 6man WG.

The use of Default Route with DHCPv6 was drafted and presented to MIF WG.

The use of PMIPv6 with Network Mobility (for vehicles) was drafted and
presented to netext WG.

The IP addressing of a network within vehicle using a single IPv6
address allocated by a cellular operator is discussed in the v6ops WG
(draft '64share').

VIN-based IP addressing scheme for vehicles is a draft to be published
soon.  I will announce it here as well.

All these activities could be gathered together in a single place, with
visibility to people having interest in vehicular communications.
Otherwise they may proceed as started in these other places.

What are the other ongoing activities at IETF relevant to vehicular
communications?

Alex

Le 26/01/2013 14:54, Abdussalam Baryun a écrit :
> AB _______________________________________________ its mailing list
> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>
>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:01:03 +0100

Hi All,

Why do we have many groups within IETF Routing Area including MANET if
all WGs are designing protocols related to routing?

I think the answer is that MANET is concerned with general purposes of
dynamic routing but ITS is for specific routing issues,

AB

On 1/28/13, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> All,
>
> This is just one opinion, but I'd like to understand why ITS would need its
> own IETF group. The work here is the same (IMO) as what is taking place in
> MANET. I would vote that this work be taken up in MANET.
>
> Regards,
> Stan
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:01:40 +0100

Le 26/01/2013 15:27, Nabil Benamar a écrit :
> Hi All,
>
> I'm still interested in this list and want to join voices previously
>  heard to make it a working group. So what should we exactly do, to
> achieve this goal ?

Contact an industry partner, or research organization, or ongoing
collaborative project, or SDO, and learn from them whether some of the
techniques mentioned here may be relevant to their current interests.

Alex

>
>
> 2013/1/26 Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>
> Hi All,
>
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> -- * * **تحياتي ، ****Cordialement, Regards** ** ** ** ** *نبيل
> بنعمرو Nabil Benamar* Professor of computer sciences Simulation and
> Modelisation Laboratory Human Sciences Faculty of Meknes Moulay
> Ismail/**/University/* Meknes, Morocco */GSM: //+ 212 6 70832236
> http://nabilbenamar.com/
>
> **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------**
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ its mailing list

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:04:55 +0100

>  the IESG. I have not attended the last meeting so not sure about the

The last meeting was held in Vancouver - it was informal.  WE did not
meet in Atlanta.

We could plan to meet in Orlando (I will be there), but this would be
the 3rd time we meet informally.  In the past, when we met with a room,
we were given the room for free by IETF.  I feel like if we request
again a room, still informal meeting, for Orlando, there will have to be
expenses involved (not sure).  This is one reason I don't know whether
we should meet with a room.

Alex

>> I'm still interested in this list and want to join voices
>> previously heard to make it a working group. So what should we
>> exactly do, to achieve this goal ?
>>
>>
>>> I was interested in this group but not sure where are we so far.
>>> Is there progress, or is there issues/efforts that need to be
>>> completed and volunteered.
>>>
>>> AB _______________________________________________ its mailing
>>> list [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- * * *تحياتي ، **Cordialement, Regards* * * * * *نبيل بنعمرو
>> Nabil Benamar* Professor of computer sciences Simulation and
>> Ismail* *University* Meknes, Morocco *GSM: * *+ 212 6 70832236
>> http://nabilbenamar.com/
>>
>> *
*

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:07:50 +0100

> organizations interested in vehicular communications, and more.

Do you mean we still don't have that yet, I see on this list many
interested. How do you or the IETF measure interest is it by number or
by value, or other?
Also how long do you expect this will take so we get the IETF ITS WG active?

please advise,

AB

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:08:08 +0100

Le 28/01/2013 05:02, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) a écrit :
> All,
>
> This is just one opinion, but I'd like to understand why ITS would
> need its own IETF group. The work here is the same (IMO) as what is
> taking place in MANET. I would vote that this work be taken up in
> MANET.

Stan,

Thank you for the offer.  I considered this offer since some time.

I try to understand whether some of these items on which I have interest
could be brought in in MANET WG:
- V2V using prefix exchange
- VIN-based IP addressing scheme
- ND Prefix Delegation
- PMIP-based network mobility
- IPv6 single-address connecion 'sharing' with a cellular operator and
   a vehicular moving network (type '64share' of v6ops).
- Default Route with DHCPv6.

Please let me know.

Yours,

Alex

> Regards, Stan
>> I think we already done some steps but not sure how far now. We
>> will need to propose the WG and provide the WG charter, as use
>> cases and work to be done in this group. This charter needs to be
>> approved by the IESG. I have not attended the last meeting so not
>> sure about the status now,
>>
>> AB
>>
>>>> I was interested in this group but not sure where are we so
>>>> far. Is there progress, or is there issues/efforts that need
>>>> to be completed and volunteered.
>>>>
*

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:12:51 +0100

I think there is more ITS interest in Europe than in America, so maybe
meeting in the IETF in Europe will be more active. I cannot be to the
next meeting but will be available to join the one after Orlando in
Europe,

AB

---

From: "Dr. Hans-Joachim Fischer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:14:53 +0100

Why are you so much focused on vehicle industry and ETSI? What they are 
doing is just a very small slice of C-ITS, and it is without a business 
model. The real C-ITS happens together with the infrastructure guys.

Hans-Joachim Fischer

http://its-standards.eu

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://its-standards.info/ESF-News-2012-01.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or reproduction is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Hans-Joachim Fischer
ESF GmbH
Fichtenweg 9
89143 Blaubeuren
+49 (7344) 175340
+49 (7344) 919123 (Fax)
http://fischer-tech.eu : Main web of ESF GmbH
http://its-standards.eu : News on cooperative ITS standardization
http://its-testing.org : International consultancy for cooperative ITS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:16:11 +0100

Le 28/01/2013 11:07, Abdussalam Baryun a écrit :
>> We need support from actors in the vehicle industry, vehicle
>> equipment manufacturers, OEMs,  extra-IETF SDOs specialized in
>> vehicular communications  (e.g. ETSI ITS), nationwide and EU
>> projects and research organizations interested in vehicular
>> communications, and more.
>
> interested.

Well, there is strong background support for IP vehicular networking.

Many of these activities happen outside IETF.  In some cases with good
effects, and in other cases less so (for example ETSI ITS is a good
standard but little known at IETF).

> How do you or the IETF measure interest is it by number or by value,
>  or other?

If we organize a bar BoF we need to fill that room, and have people
expressing whether this work is needed or not.  This is more than just
emails - emails is simply confirmation about what's happening in a room.

By value - people potentially involved need at least travel budget
thrice a year.

> Also how long do you expect this will take so we get the IETF ITS WG

Personally I see this as a continuously ongoing informal activity, until
someone shows and kicks it up into a bar BoF, then BoF, then WG.  This
is an engagement on at least 1-year length (3 meetings), only to get it
started.  Once started, there are about 2-3 years to pass to get some
RFC out.

Alex

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:17:00 +0100

Hi Alex,

The MANET may recharter in future, they can include your concerns,
because MANET has general purpose protocols, but I think ITS should
submit its charter before MANET does, so things can go forward for
both groups :)

I maybe missing something :(

AB

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:35:42 +0100

Le 28/01/2013 11:14, Dr. Hans-Joachim Fischer a écrit :
>
> Why are you so much focused on vehicle industry and ETSI? What they
> are doing is just a very small slice of C-ITS, and it is without a
> business model. The real C-ITS happens together with the
> infrastructure guys.

Right,

I am also looking to identify the infrastructure guys and about the real
Cooperative-ITS.

When speaking to a telephone operator (controlling this 3G and 4G
networks, and very pertinent to vehicles), the long range Wireless LAN
standards and infrastructures (aka 802.11p) is little if known at all.

What kind of infrastructure you mention?  The communication
infrastructure deployed along the roads (like emergency call booths)?
Which infrastructure?

Alex

>> I still consider realization of work here.  At my organization we
>> have several activities for IP vehicular communications.
>>
>> Prefix exchange for V2V communications was presented in manemo bar
>> bof (long ago).  This could be one single topic on which a WG
>> could be formed (there are at least two participants ready to put
>> effort in finalizing a document).
>>
>> The use of PMIPv6 with Network Mobility (for vehicles) was drafted
>> and presented to netext WG.
>>
>> address allocated by a cellular operator is discussed in the v6ops
>> WG (draft '64share').
>>
>> VIN-based IP addressing scheme for vehicles is a draft to be
>> published soon.  I will announce it here as well.
>>
>> All these activities could be gathered together in a single place,
>> with visibility to people having interest in vehicular
>> communications. Otherwise they may proceed as started in these
>> other places.
>>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:52:03 +0100

> I maybe missing something :(

Hi Abdussalam,

I also think as you that MANET has general purpose protocols, and I also
think ITS should focus specifically on IP vehicular communications.

The IP vehicular communications need more than just  routing protocols,
and MANET routing protocols are more than just for vehicular communications.

I agree with you.

You mention charter.

MANET is already a WG and re-chartering is an easier process than
starting up from scratch.

ITS would need to do 1, 2, 3 BoFs first.  Each time with a Charter proposal.

Do you think it is time now to draft some proposal about some potential
Charter?

Alex

>>> This is just one opinion, but I'd like to understand why ITS
>>> would need its own IETF group. The work here is the same (IMO)
>>> as what is taking place in MANET. I would vote that this work be
>>> taken up in MANET.
>>
>> Stan,
>>
>> I try to understand whether some of these items on which I have
>> interest could be brought in in MANET WG: - V2V using prefix
>> exchange - VIN-based IP addressing scheme - ND Prefix Delegation -
>> PMIP-based network mobility - IPv6 single-address connecion
>> 'sharing' with a cellular operator and a vehicular moving network
>> (type '64share' of v6ops). - Default Route with DHCPv6.
>>
>> Please let me know.
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>>
>>> Regards, Stan
>>>
>>>> cases and work to be done in this group. This charter needs to
>>>> be approved by the IESG. I have not attended the last meeting
>>>> so not sure about the status now,
>>>>
>>>> AB
>>>>
>>>>> previously heard to make it a working group. So what should
>>>>> we exactly do, to achieve this goal ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> far. Is there progress, or is there issues/efforts that
>>>>>> need to be completed and volunteered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AB _______________________________________________ its
>>>>>> mailing list [email-masked]
>>>>> -- * * *تحياتي ، **Cordialement, Regards* * * * * *نبيل
>>>>> بنعمرو Nabil Benamar* Professor of computer sciences
>>>>> Simulation and Modelisation Laboratory Human Sciences
>>>>> Faculty of Meknes Moulay Ismail* *University* Meknes, Morocco
>>>>> *GSM: * *+ 212 6 70832236 http://nabilbenamar.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> *
*
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ its mailing

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:31:43 +0100

Dear all,

At this stage, I don't think a new working group is needed. First, it 
would need a charter, and support from the industry. But more 
importantly, IETF WGs are not usually sector-driven, so it means the 
different issues pertaining to ITS should be brought to VARIOUS existing 
WGs, and a WG should only be created if there is an important issue for 
which there is no existing WG that could work on it.

This said, as mentioned earlier, ITS is not only about vehicular 
communications, though the issues listed by Alexandru below mostly 
consider vehicular communications.

What ITS really needs is the definition of a common communication 
architecture and the definition of what features should be comprised for 
an IPv6 networking stack deployed for ITS use cases. This cannot be done 
at IETF, and actually already exists at ISO:
- ISO 21217 - Architecture
- ISO 21210 - IPv6 Networking

As an input to the discussion, please consider reading documents D2.1 
and D2.2 available on the ITSSv6 project web page: 
http://www.itssv6.eu/documentation/ D2.2 provides an analysis of the 
currently published version of ISO 21210, but new work items have been 
launched since then to address remaining issues.

Regards,
Thierry.

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:33:10 +0100

Hi Alex,

IMO, we need to discuss the charter on the list, so no others can
include such ideas in other group charter. We will need some advise
from the AD of Area that we want to submit to. We will need to have
clear initial I-Ds that support the main points of the ITS charter,
which I think we need to prepare with discussions,

> Do you think it is time now to draft some proposal about some potential

This question should be answered by all as well. For me, Yes, and
disscussing it on the list and the editor collecting participants'
suggestions including suggestions of the name of the WG. We may have
done that discussion of use-cases of ITS which is good for initial
drafts. However, I am not sure about the submit right time for
success, but like to leave it to be flexible in future while seeing
discussions in the I-Ds and charter proposal direction.

I will try to read procedures of creating WG and BoF, which I am not
much familiar with,

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:55:32 +0100

Hi Thierry, and All

I disagree, on that if other WG can (not-welling to) work on something
of ITS we should not open a new one, I remember that a WG once opened
another WG with same participants but for a different application for
that WG but know closed, comments in line;

On 1/28/13, Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]> wrote:
> importantly, IETF WGs are not usually sector-driven,

Where does that rule apply in the WG procedure, is that a condition? I
think it depends on requirements and participants' welling. Why
industry is driving IETF what about others, I thought that IETF is
about the community not just one sector of the community. IETF is part
of the Internet World not the industry.

> so it means the

I don't see any WG in IETF can work on the ITS so far, their working
depends on their Charter and their Charter do not include ITS, so we
are the only ones trying to do that such work into IETF,

> an IPv6 networking stack deployed for ITS use cases.

Why needs definitions, the customer already defined their needs to
ITS, so our group in IETF are following their needs, and including
industry needs.

>This cannot be done

We may have different views in the Internet Community. Was it
discussed in IETF if not then we Should do and no one should stop such
improvements. Nothing is perfect ;)

> launched since then to address remaining issues.

I thank you for the pointer. I will follow your advise to read them,

for my input, if I have misunderstood please advise,

AB

---

From: Joe Klein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:16:42 -0500

I really dislike the fact that ISO is charging for the ISO 21217 -
Architecture & ISO 21210 - IPv6 Networking.

Does this make it any better? Safer?  Should ISO now have
cybersecurity and safety liability if the specification leads to
deaths and damage to property?  Or should these standards remain in
the public domain, for researches to review and validate?

Just my 2 cents.

Joe

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> At this stage, I don't think a new working group is needed. First, it would
> need a charter, and support from the industry. But more importantly, IETF
> WGs are not usually sector-driven, so it means the different issues
> pertaining to ITS should be brought to VARIOUS existing WGs, and a WG should
> only be created if there is an important issue for which there is no
> existing WG that could work on it.
>
> communications, though the issues listed by Alexandru below mostly consider
> vehicular communications.
>
> architecture and the definition of what features should be comprised for an
> IPv6 networking stack deployed for ITS use cases. This cannot be done at
> IETF, and actually already exists at ISO:
> As an input to the discussion, please consider reading documents D2.1 and
> D2.2 available on the ITSSv6 project web page:

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:28:39 +0100

Le 28/01/2013 14:16, Joe Klein a écrit :
> deaths and damage to property?

Does it make any better interoperable as well?

EtherType 0x0707 described in ITS documents, implemented, but not
specified by IEEE nor reserved at IANA - does not make it interoperable.

One wouldn't think that this 0x0707 ethertype be reserved by somebody
who is not IANA nor IEEE?

(see a good example of interoperability: IPv6 0x86dd ethertype is
reserved at IEEE and at IANA
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ieee-802-numbers/ieee-802-numbers.xml)

Alex

   Or should these standards remain in
>> At this stage, I don't think a new working group is needed. First,
>> it would need a charter, and support from the industry. But more
>> importantly, IETF WGs are not usually sector-driven, so it means
>> the different issues pertaining to ITS should be brought to VARIOUS
>> existing WGs, and a WG should only be created if there is an
>> important issue for which there is no existing WG that could work
>> on it.
>>
>> architecture and the definition of what features should be
>> comprised for an IPv6 networking stack deployed for ITS use cases.
>> This cannot be done at IETF, and actually already exists at ISO: -
>> ISO 21217 - Architecture - ISO 21210 - IPv6 Networking
>>
>> As an input to the discussion, please consider reading documents
>> D2.1 and D2.2 available on the ITSSv6 project web page:
>> http://www.itssv6.eu/documentation/ D2.2 provides an analysis of
>> the currently published version of ISO 21210, but new work items
>> have been launched since then to address remaining issues.
>>
>> Regards, Thierry.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> as what is taking place in MANET. I would vote that this work
>>>> be taken up in MANET.
>>>
>>>
>>> Stan,
>>>
>>> exchange - VIN-based IP addressing scheme - ND Prefix Delegation
>>> - PMIP-based network mobility - IPv6 single-address connecion
>>>>> I think we already done some steps but not sure how far now.
>>>>> We will need to propose the WG and provide the WG charter, as
>>>>> use cases and work to be done in this group. This charter
>>>>> needs to be approved by the IESG. I have not attended the
>>>>> last meeting so not sure about the status now,
>>>>>
>>>>> AB
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was interested in this group but not sure where are we
>>>>>>> so far. Is there progress, or is there issues/efforts
>>>>>>> that need to be completed and volunteered.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Faculty of Meknes Moulay Ismail* *University* Meknes,
>>>>>> Morocco *GSM: * *+ 212 6 70832236 http://nabilbenamar.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *
>>>>>>
*

---

From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:34:26 +0000

> - Default Route with DHCPv6.

Alex, 

Yes, I think that all of these issues should be discussed in MANET. A large portion of the networks I deploy are the vehicular-type networks that ITS is discussing. So at least for me, this is a very good fit. Instead of creating a new working group, and potentially running into the conflicts that creates (reference recent discussions about the difference between MANET and ROLL), it would be possibly a re-charter for MANET to include some of these items. 

Regards,
Stan

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:25:39 +0100

I have no objection as only if the participants in this group (after
rough consensus) are happy to do such discussion in MANET WG, because
I am already participating in both as some do  :-)

I prefer another approach. Why not who interested in MANET WG
participants join here and discuss ITS in this list, to make a value
for this list and the efforts done before for this group at least, and
then we can see which direction we will go as consensus. It is inscope
to discuss ITS here but I think still out of scope in MANET WG (not
chartered yet).

 I think names of groups don't matter it is the effort and welling of
participants that make the change in technology,

AB

On 1/28/13, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Yes, I think that all of these issues should be discussed in MANET. A large
> portion of the networks I deploy are the vehicular-type networks that ITS is
> discussing. So at least for me, this is a very good fit. Instead of creating
> a new working group, and potentially running into the conflicts that creates
> (reference recent discussions about the difference between MANET and ROLL),
> it would be possibly a re-charter for MANET to include some of these items.
>
>
> Regards,
> Stan
>

---

From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:36:31 +0000

> participants that make the change in technology,

We agree there - the name of the group doesn't matter. I'm basing my opinion on the work to be done - ITS and MANET are operating in the same general solution space. To create a separate group is to invite the same types of issues that MANET has with ROLL (e.g. when is a sensor net a MANET?).

Stan

---

From: "Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:52:15 -0600

Agreed.  Perhaps ITS can create a draft charter document that can be used to
modify/update the manet charter.   It is much easier to start with
something.

Will

> We agree there - the name of the group doesn't matter. I'm basing my opinion
> on the work to be done - ITS and MANET are operating in the same general
> solution space. To create a separate group is to invite the same types of
> issues that MANET has with ROLL (e.g. when is a sensor net a MANET?).
> 
> Stan
> 
> 
>>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:27:25 +0100

> issues that MANET has with ROLL (e.g. when is a sensor net a MANET?).

I don't think that ITS is a general solution, it is specific like
ROLL. However, I like to see all participants of ITS what they think
also. In my opinion that MANET WG is not ready yet, it is very
difficult to move things there, because there works purpose are fiting
many situations and scenarios. Which I like, but also feel that this
WG is needed.

AB

---

From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:29:46 +0000

> many situations and scenarios. Which I like, but also feel that this

OK, we disagree. Like you, I await other opinions.

Stan

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:32:27 +0100

Hi Will,

I agree to discuss technical issues and see opinions. We don't forget
that new work of ITS will always be forced to be related to the RFC of
MANET by some participants even if that is not the best for the ITS
work. I vote for separate WG to make work flow pure and focus,

AB

---

From: "Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:50:04 -0600

A separate WG is not out of the question. Just very difficult.  You need to
justify the need.  Regardless, a draft charter document will be helpful.
Going through the process will likely validate the need for a separate WG
or, perhaps,show the commonality to other ongoing work.

Will

******************************
William D. Ivancic
Phone 216-433-3494
Fax 216-433-8705
Networking Lab 216-433-2620
Mobile 440-503-4892
http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~ivancic

> From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:32:27 -0600
> To: "Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0)" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <[email-masked]>, Alexandru Petrescu
> <[email-masked]>, "<[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [its] What do we need to make ITS WG go forward?
> 
> Hi Will,
>

---

From: Rex Buddenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:56:23 -0800

Stan, you raise a good point.  Further, I've only been on the e-mail
wire vis ITS (nobody is paying travel to IETF meetings for me), but
there seems to be little business model ... can't find an answer to the
'why are we doing this?' question.  MANET certainly pertains to the
problem ... whatever it is.  

So let me try and poke at erecting some context.  (Warning: this is a
bit US centric).  

Right now we have two parallel, non-intersecting, emergency services
communications systems out there in public safety.  
	- one is the 911 system by which citizens call emergencies in.  These
calls go to a PSAP (public service answering point), aka dispatcher,
which has, without much articulation, become the decision node in the
information system.  The existing 911 system is coming apart at the
seams because all the 'tells' about location go away with cellphone.  We
have to grip that we need to build a 911 _information_ system, not just
a comms system.
	- the other comms system is the intra-public services comms system.  It
is a stovepipe system between, say, the fire engines and the fire
station.  Looking aft to the past, this has traditionally been Land
Mobile Radio, 25kHz protocol-free VHF radio links that are good for
voice but not much else (yes, there are several data apps crammed into
them but they're not good fits).  The straight LMR system has been
overlaid with a non-routable protocol called P25 over the past decade
(since 9/11) and is pushed by DHS in its grant guidance.  The rationale
for P25 was 'interoperability' but we're a decade into P25 and have no
interoperability gains.  The public is not part of this (expensive and
quickly aging) comms system.

Meanwhile there is a 'broadband' push.   'Broadband' doesn't have a
decent definition here, but it does have some grant money.  There are
two fed government grants -- one associated with the National Broadband
Plan and the other with legislation that sets up FirstNet, an autonomous
corporation within Department of Commerce (don't ask me what that means
either). 
	The problem here is that a decade ago we had no federal agencies in
this space; today we have at least a half dozen.  The 'guidance' is
incomplete and contradictory.  
	The perspective for the public services folks is always warped by their
LMR/P25 experience.  The notion that listen-before-talk is now part of
the MAC in a layer 2 protocol just won't sink in;-).  More importantly,
the entirely legitimate requirement for 'assured service' always warps
into a need for segregated spectrum.   
	Further, the infrastructure discussion is unbalanced (and we've seen
this in [its] as well) -- radio is always a hard problem.  The best way
to keep the radio problem manageable is to get the terrestrial-WAN
right.  But 'backhaul' never gets credibility discussion with the public
services folks.  

The problem crosses standards bodies; IETF properly is a player.  So is
IEEE/TIA (IEEE 802.16, TIA LTE).  There are application design issues
(end-end security, multicast, manageability) that transcend IETF
standards. And data interoperability issues that are outside IETF scope.
(several standards groups here, OASIS is one.  Coherence?  Hardly.
	And, as we're obviously feeling in the [its] discussion, there are
mobile platforms involved.  Automobiles are the bulk, but you can make
scenarios that involve aircraft and watercraft too.  

Alex has done well trying to get some activity in [its], but we've come
nowhere near defining a scope  ... the [its] problem, viewed through the
emergency services prism, is all over the place.  And critically
important -- the next guy in the ambulance may be you.  This lack of
scope (or too narrow a scope) is the part that has me hung up.

Rather than state the question of why MANET isn't good enough, suggest
we turn the question around ... just what is it that we need?

This is a restate, but suggest that it might be a use case that focuses:
instrumented ambulance.
	Consider the case of a casualty in an ambulance (and there may be >1
casualty and >1 ambulance).  We want to attach a bunch of sensors to the
casualty and make that data appear at least two places: locally for the
EMT's use and at the ER in the hospital for the MD looking over the
EMT's shoulder.  Other data in the ambulance, like it's location, also
needs to be exported (this probably to the PSAP for tactical display,
routing and other reasons).  
	There are several dimensions of comms problem -- routing table
volatility is only one.  There's a great big operational availability
(Ao) problem that is often ignored.  
	There are multicast problems -- the data needs to go >1 place.  
	There are application design problems -- end-end security goes at the
top of the list, but include multicast and manageability.
	
The good news is that we have standards-based solutions for just about
all of these problems ... in a half dozen different standards bodies.
[ITS] is the closest we've gotten to getting a grip on them, at least
within IETF.

> >>>> list [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
 <>>> -- * * *تحياتي ، **Cordialement, Regards* * * * * *نبيل بنعمرو

---

From: "Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:16:19 -0600

Rex.

I am not advocating this solution. Furthermore, I believe there are similar
offerings from other companies.

www.twistpair.com/

But, I think this is the problem space you refer to in your email below.  It
is a system of disjoint radio systems problem.  Many which do not support IP
at all.  But there is a reason for not putting all your eggs in one basket.
Public safety communication systems have to work to some minimum degree
i.e., voice when all else fails.

I suspect ITS would compliment, but not replace many of these systems.

Will

> From: Rex Buddenberg <[email-masked]>
> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:56:23 -0600
> To: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:52:14 +0100

> we turn the question around ... just what is it that we need?

If you read the discussion I think the use case of ITS is clear, but
your example of public safety is closer for MANET WG
> [ITS] is the closest we've gotten to getting a grip on them, at least

I think we need a roadmap for the way we can work together and
delegate tasks. We need initial drafts for the ITS to start including
charter draft or scope draft

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:31:40 +0100

Hi Alex

comment below
> started.  Once started, there are about 2-3 years to pass to get some

if we have informal meeting, then I suggest we discuss our initial
drafts if any available and make them well scoped/written and see how
it involves all requirements for formal activity,

AB

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:11:07 +0100

Alex,

IEEE have assigned Ethernet Type Field number #8947 for ITS use (ETSI TC 
ITS's GeoNetworking). Check the following document available on the ETSI 
server:

ITS(13)000020 
<http://docbox.etsi.org/ITS/ITS/05-CONTRIBUTIONS/2013/ITS%2813%29000020_Ethernet_Type_Field_number_for_GeoNetworking.pdf> 
Ethernet Type Field number for GeoNetworking
http://docbox.etsi.org/ITS/ITS/05-CONTRIBUTIONS/2013/ITS(13)000020_Ethernet_Type_Field_number_for_GeoNetworking.pdf

Regards,
Thierry.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:39:20 +0100

Le 30/01/2013 10:11, Thierry Ernst a écrit :
>
> Alex,
>
> IEEE have assigned Ethernet Type Field number #8947 for ITS use (ETSI
> TC ITS's GeoNetworking). Check the following document available on
> the ETSI server:
>
> ITS(13)000020

Thierry,

I
may be wrong, but here are my thoughts.

I am trying to access these URLs you provide above but they are password
protected.  What is the username and password?

The URL indicates ETSI, not IEEE.

The IEEE URL for EtherTypes is the following, I believe:
http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/ethertype/eth.txt

That eth.txt file does not contain 0707 nor 8947.  But it does contain,
for example 86DD which is 'IPv6'.

The 0x0707 EtherType is present in an implementation which is supposed
compliant with ETSI ITS (plugtests).  Wireshark dump available upon request.

Besides, if this is to be about IPv6, I think it should be reserved at
IANA as well, in addition to reserving it at IEEE.  The IANA URL for
IEEE 802 Numbers is at:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ieee-802-numbers/ieee-802-numbers.xml

(the #8947 that you mention above does not seem to figure in this IANA
  URL).

This is why I believe this number should be reserved both as an
EtherType at IEEE and at IANA.

Yours,

Alex

>>> I really dislike the fact that ISO is charging for the ISO 21217
>>> - Architecture & ISO 21210 - IPv6 Networking.
>>>
>> One wouldn't think that this 0x0707 ethertype be reserved by
>> somebody who is not IANA nor IEEE?
>>
Alex
>>>> At this stage, I don't think a new working group is needed.
>>>> First, it would need a charter, and support from the industry.
>>>> But more importantly, IETF WGs are not usually sector-driven,
>>>> so it means the different issues pertaining to ITS should be
>>>> brought to VARIOUS existing WGs, and a WG should only be
>>>> created if there is an important issue for which there is no
>>>> This said, as mentioned earlier, ITS is not only about
>>>> vehicular communications, though the issues listed by Alexandru
>>>> below mostly consider vehicular communications.
>>>>
>>>> What ITS really needs is the definition of a common
>>>> communication architecture and the definition of what features
>>>> should be comprised for an IPv6 networking stack deployed for
>>>> ITS use cases. This cannot be done at IETF, and actually
>>>> already exists at ISO: - ISO 21217 - Architecture - ISO 21210 -
>>>> IPv6 Networking
>>>>
>>>> As an input to the discussion, please consider reading
>>>> documents D2.1 and D2.2 available on the ITSSv6 project web
>>>> page: http://www.itssv6.eu/documentation/ D2.2 provides an
>>>> analysis of the currently published version of ISO 21210, but
>>>> new work items have been launched since then to address
>>>> remaining issues.
>>>>
>>>> Regards, Thierry.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> This is just one opinion, but I'd like to understand why
>>>>>> ITS would need its own IETF group. The work here is the
>>>>>> same (IMO) as what is taking place in MANET. I would vote
>>>>>> that this work be taken up in MANET.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stan,
>>>>>
>>>>> I try to understand whether some of these items on which I
>>>>> have interest could be brought in in MANET WG: - V2V using
>>>>> prefix exchange - VIN-based IP addressing scheme - ND Prefix
>>>>> Delegation - PMIP-based network mobility - IPv6
>>>>> single-address connecion 'sharing' with a cellular operator
>>>>> and a vehicular moving network (type '64share' of v6ops). -
>>>>> Default Route with DHCPv6.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yours,
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards, Stan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we already done some steps but not sure how far
>>>>>>> now. We will need to propose the WG and provide the WG
>>>>>>> charter, as use cases and work to be done in this group.
>>>>>>> This charter needs to be approved by the IESG. I have not
>>>>>>> attended the last meeting so not sure about the status
>>>>>>> now,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> AB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm still interested in this list and want to join
>>>>>>>> voices previously heard to make it a working group. So
>>>>>>>> what should we exactly do, to achieve this goal ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was interested in this group but not sure where are
>>>>>>>>> we so far. Is there progress, or is there
>>>>>>>>> issues/efforts that need to be completed and
>>>>>>>>> volunteered.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> AB _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> its mailing list [email-masked]
>>>>>>>> -- * * *تحياتي ، **Cordialement, Regards* * * * *
>>>>>>>> *نبيل بنعمرو Nabil Benamar* Professor of computer
>>>>>>>> sciences Simulation and Modelisation Laboratory Human
>>>>>>>> Sciences Faculty of Meknes Moulay Ismail* *University*
>>>>>>>> Meknes, Morocco *GSM: * *+ 212 6 70832236
>>>>>>>> http://nabilbenamar.com/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ its
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ its

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 09:49:59 +0000

Hi,

The documents that you are referring (on the ETSI server) are not freely accessible. A password is required, and probably only ETSI members have the access information.
The responsibility for assigning EtherType values is with the IEEE Registration Authority. They maintain a public list (updated daily) at  http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/ethertype/eth.txt and according to this list the value 8947 is not allocated. Now, the public listing information for EtherTypes bears a disclaimer that says

  *   This is a partial listing of all assigned EtherType Fields. Not all recipients wish to publish their assignment at this time.
Did ETSI require for this information not to be published? It does not look useful if they want to encourage interoperability

Value 0707 mentioned in the thread is not allocated either.

Let me know if I can help (as IETF liaison to the IEEE-SA).

Regards,

Dan

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Thierry Ernst
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:11 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [its] What do we need to make ITS WG go forward? - EtherType for ITS

Alex,

IEEE have assigned Ethernet Type Field number #8947 for ITS use (ETSI TC ITS's GeoNetworking). Check the following document available on the ETSI server:

ITS(13)000020<http://docbox.etsi.org/ITS/ITS/05-CONTRIBUTIONS/2013/ITS%2813%29000020_Ethernet_Type_Field_number_for_GeoNetworking.pdf> Ethernet Type Field number for GeoNetworking
http://docbox.etsi.org/ITS/ITS/05-CONTRIBUTIONS/2013/ITS(13)000020_Ethernet_Type_Field_number_for_GeoNetworking.pdf

Regards,
Thierry.

Alex

Just my 2 cents.

Joe

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Thierry Ernst
<[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:

Dear all,

Regards, Thierry.

All,

Stan,

Thank you for the offer.  I considered this offer since some
time.

Please let me know.

Yours,

Alex

Regards, Stan

Hi Nabil,

AB

On 1/26/13, Nabil Benamar <[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi All,

2013/1/26 Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked]>

Hi All,

AB _______________________________________________ its
mailing list [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

*

*

_______________________________________________ its mailing
list [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

_______________________________________________ its mailing
list [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

_______________________________________________ its mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

_______________________________________________ its mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
_______________________________________________ its mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

_______________________________________________
its mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:52:36 +0100

ETSI members have access to this document: this letter from Angela N. 
Thomas / IEEE Registration Authority it reads:
/Following is the Ethernet Type Field that you have requested from the 
IEEE. Please take a moment//
//to verify that the information contained in the company address area 
(above) is correct. If it//
//is not entirely correct, please notify the IEEE immediately.//
//The Ethertype tutorial on our web site at://
//http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/ethertype/type-tut.html//
//It should be stressed that the IEEE assignment committee has made 
every effort to ensure that//
//there is no duplication of assignments, but does not guarantee that 
duplicate assignments have//
//not occurred. We urge that all requests for numbers be administered by 
one person within your//
//company.//
//Your Ethernet Type Field number is: #8947//
//For more information on the uses of your ethernet type field, please 
see the relevant standards.//
///

Re what Alex wrote, IPv6 works over GeoNetworking which is a protocol 
defined by ETSI to work over G5 (ETSI's 11p). So, why would you need an 
additional EtherType ?

Regards,
Thierry

On 30/01/13 10:39, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>>> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:53:46 +0100

In private I got hold of a pdf letter from IEEE to ETSI dated January
29th, 2013, which says that the EtherType is #8947.  (not sure hexa or
decimal).

See that letter attached to this email.

One would say that things unfold as we speak.

I still think that IANA should also allocate it as well. (maybe I'll get
another pdf in private telling me it's already done...)

Alex

Le 30/01/2013 10:39, Alexandru Petrescu a écrit :
>> IEEE have assigned Ethernet Type Field number #8947 for ITS use
>> (ETSI TC ITS's GeoNetworking). Check the following document
>> available on the ETSI server:
>>
>> ITS(13)000020
> I am trying to access these URLs you provide above but they are
> password protected.  What is the username and password?
>
> That eth.txt file does not contain 0707 nor 8947.  But it does
> contain, for example 86DD which is 'IPv6'.
>
> The 0x0707 EtherType is present in an implementation which is
> supposed compliant with ETSI ITS (plugtests).  Wireshark dump
> available upon request.
>
> Besides, if this is to be about IPv6, I think it should be reserved
> at IANA as well, in addition to reserving it at IEEE.  The IANA URL
> for IEEE 802 Numbers is at:
>  (the #8947 that you mention above does not seem to figure in this
> IANA URL).
>
>>>> I really dislike the fact that ISO is charging for the ISO
>>>> 21217 - Architecture & ISO 21210 - IPv6 Networking.
>>>>
>>>> cybersecurity and safety liability if the specification leads
>>>> to deaths and damage to property?
>>>
>>> EtherType 0x0707 described in ITS documents, implemented, but
>>> not specified by IEEE nor reserved at IANA - does not make it
>>> interoperable.
>>>
>>> (see a good example of interoperability: IPv6 0x86dd ethertype
>>> is reserved at IEEE and at IANA
Alex
>>>>> First, it would need a charter, and support from the
>>>>> industry. But more importantly, IETF WGs are not usually
>>>>> sector-driven, so it means the different issues pertaining to
>>>>> ITS should be brought to VARIOUS existing WGs, and a WG
>>>>> should only be created if there is an important issue for
>>>>> vehicular communications, though the issues listed by
>>>>> Alexandru below mostly consider vehicular communications.
>>>>>
>>>>> communication architecture and the definition of what
>>>>> features should be comprised for an IPv6 networking stack
>>>>> deployed for ITS use cases. This cannot be done at IETF, and
>>>>> actually already exists at ISO: - ISO 21217 - Architecture -
>>>>> ISO 21210 - IPv6 Networking
>>>>>
>>>>> analysis of the currently published version of ISO 21210,
>>>>> but new work items have been launched since then to address
>>>>> remaining issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards, Thierry.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> same (IMO) as what is taking place in MANET. I would
>>>>>>> vote that this work be taken up in MANET.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> prefix exchange - VIN-based IP addressing scheme - ND
>>>>>> Prefix Delegation - PMIP-based network mobility - IPv6
>>>>>> single-address connecion 'sharing' with a cellular
>>>>>> operator and a vehicular moving network (type '64share' of
>>>>>> v6ops). - Default Route with DHCPv6.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please let me know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yours,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards, Stan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think we already done some steps but not sure how
>>>>>>>> far now. We will need to propose the WG and provide the
>>>>>>>> WG charter, as use cases and work to be done in this
>>>>>>>> group. This charter needs to be approved by the IESG. I
>>>>>>>> have not attended the last meeting so not sure about
>>>>>>>> the status now,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> AB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> voices previously heard to make it a working group.
>>>>>>>>> So what should we exactly do, to achieve this goal ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was interested in this group but not sure where
>>>>>>>>>> are we so far. Is there progress, or is there
>>>>>>>>> sciences Simulation and Modelisation Laboratory
>>>>>>>>> Human Sciences Faculty of Meknes Moulay Ismail*
>>>>>>>>> *University* Meknes, Morocco *GSM: * *+ 212 6
>>>>>>>>> 70832236 http://nabilbenamar.com/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:59:39 +0100

Hello Dan,

Thank you for the email.

I think we definitely need a good interface with IEEE about this.

Maybe you could ask them whether this number is hexa or decimal, so we 
know what to put in implementation (e.g. wireshark packet analyzers, and 
802.11p/etsi-its implementations).

Also, I am interested to learn whether this deserves being reserved at IANA.

Alex

Le 30/01/2013 10:49, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> The documents that you are referring (on the ETSI server) are not freely
> accessible. A password is required, and probably only ETSI members have
> the access information.
>
> The responsibility for assigning EtherType values is with the IEEE
> Registration Authority. They maintain a public list (updated daily) at
> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/ethertype/eth.txt and
> according to this list the value 8947 is not allocated. Now, the public
> listing information for EtherTypes bears a disclaimer that says
>
>   * This is a partial listing of all assigned EtherType Fields. Not all
>     recipients wish to publish their assignment at this time.
>
> Did ETSI require for this information not to be published? It does not
> look useful if they want to encourage interoperability
>
> *From:[email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of
> *Thierry Ernst
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:11 AM
> *To:* [email-masked]
> *Subject:* Re: [its] What do we need to make ITS WG go forward? -
> EtherType for ITS
>
>
> Alex,
>
>     <[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>
>     Dear all,
>
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>
>
>
>     Hi All,
>
>     mailing list [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     بنعمروNabil Benamar* Professor of computer sciences
>                     mailing
>                     list [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>                 list [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>             list

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:00:08 +0000

Hi,

If the PDF letter is dated 1/29 (yesterday) than we may see the IEEE RA list updated soon. 

There is no need for IANA to make an allocation (if we are discussing EtherTypes). The responsibility for EtherTypes assignment is with the IEEE RA and the file at IANA is only informational. See the note at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ieee-802-numbers/ieee-802-numbers.xml. 

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Alexandru Petrescu
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:54 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> >> <http://docbox.etsi.org/ITS/ITS/05-CONTRIBUTIONS/2013/ITS%2813%290000
> >> 20_Ethernet_Type_Field_number_for_GeoNetworking.pdf>
> >>
> >>
> >> http://docbox.etsi.org/ITS/ITS/05-CONTRIBUTIONS/2013/ITS(13)000020_Et
> >> hernet_Type_Field_number_for_GeoNetworking.pdf
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Thierry,
> >
> > I
> >>
> >>>>> First, it would need a charter, and support from the industry. But
> >>>>> more importantly, IETF WGs are not usually sector-driven, so it
> >>>>> means the different issues pertaining to ITS should be brought to
> >>>>> VARIOUS existing WGs, and a WG should only be created if there is
> >>>>> an important issue for which there is no existing WG that could
> >>>>> work on it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> D2.1 and D2.2 available on the ITSSv6 project web
> >>>>> analysis of the currently published version of ISO 21210, but new
> >>>>> work items have been launched since then to address remaining
> >>>>> issues.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards, Thierry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> previously heard to make it a working group.
> >>>>>>>>> Modelisation Laboratory Human Sciences Faculty of Meknes
> >>>>>>>>> Moulay Ismail*

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 11:01:56 +0100

Le 30/01/2013 11:00, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) a écrit :
> There is no need for IANA to make an allocation (if we are discussing
> EtherTypes). The responsibility for EtherTypes assignment is with the
> IEEE RA and the file at IANA is only informational. See the note at
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ieee-802-numbers/ieee-802-numbers.xml.

Ok, allocation no, but maybe mention it here:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ieee-802-numbers/ieee-802-numbers.xml

?

Alex

>
>  Regards,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: [email-masked]
>> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu Sent:
>> Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:54 AM To: [email-masked] Subject: Re:
>> [its] What do we need to make ITS WG go forward? - EtherType for
>> ITS
>>
>> In private I got hold of a pdf letter from IEEE to ETSI dated
>> January 29th, 2013, which says that the EtherType is #8947.  (not
>> sure hexa or decimal).
>>
>> I still think that IANA should also allocate it as well. (maybe
>> I'll get another pdf in private telling me it's already done...)
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>> Besides, if this is to be about IPv6, I think it should be
>>> reserved at IANA as well, in addition to reserving it at IEEE.
>>> The IANA URL for IEEE 802 Numbers is at:
>>>>>> cybersecurity and safety liability if the specification
>>>>>> leads to deaths and damage to property?
>>>>>
>>>>> not specified by IEEE nor reserved at IANA - does not make
>>>>> it interoperable.
>>>>>
>>>>> (see a good example of interoperability: IPv6 0x86dd
>>>>> ethertype is reserved at IEEE and at IANA
>>>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ieee-802-numbers/ieee-802-numbers.xm
>>>>>
>>>>>
l)
>>>>>>> At this stage, I don't think a new working group is
>>>>>>> needed. First, it would need a charter, and support from
>>>>>>> the industry. But more importantly, IETF WGs are not
>>>>>>> usually sector-driven, so it means the different issues
>>>>>>> pertaining to ITS should be brought to VARIOUS existing
>>>>>>> WGs, and a WG should only be created if there is an
>>>>>>> important issue for which there is no existing WG that
>>>>>>> could work on it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> deployed for ITS use cases. This cannot be done at IETF,
>>>>>>> and actually already exists at ISO: - ISO 21217 -
>>>>>>> Architecture - ISO 21210 - IPv6 Networking
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> documents D2.1 and D2.2 available on the ITSSv6 project
>>>>>>> web page: http://www.itssv6.eu/documentation/ D2.2
>>>>>>> provides an analysis of the currently published version
>>>>>>> of ISO 21210, but new work items have been launched since
>>>>>>> then to address remaining issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards, Thierry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is just one opinion, but I'd like to understand
>>>>>>>>> why ITS would need its own IETF group. The work here
>>>>>>>>> is the same (IMO) as what is taking place in MANET. I
>>>>>>>>> would vote that this work be taken up in MANET.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stan,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I try to understand whether some of these items on
>>>>>>>> which I have interest could be brought in in MANET WG:
>>>>>>>> - V2V using prefix exchange - VIN-based IP addressing
>>>>>>>> scheme - ND Prefix Delegation - PMIP-based network
>>>>>>>> mobility - IPv6 single-address connecion 'sharing' with
>>>>>>>> a cellular operator and a vehicular moving network
>>>>>>>>>> far now. We will need to propose the WG and provide
>>>>>>>>>> the WG charter, as use cases and work to be done in
>>>>>>>>>> this group. This charter needs to be approved by
>>>>>>>>>> the IESG. I have not attended the last meeting so
>>>>>>>>>> not sure about the status now,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> AB
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm still interested in this list and want to
>>>>>>>>>>> join voices previously heard to make it a working
>>>>>>>>>>> group. So what should we exactly do, to achieve
>>>>>>>>>>> this goal ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I was interested in this group but not sure
>>>>>>>>>>>> where are we so far. Is there progress, or is
>>>>>>>>>>>> there issues/efforts that need to be completed
>>>>>>>>>>>> and volunteered.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> AB
>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
------------------

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:04:02 +0000

Hi Alexandru, 

IEEE talk only hexa in their Ethertype files. 

Regards,

Dan

> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:00 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> > The documents that you are referring (on the ETSI server) are not
> > freely accessible. A password is required, and probably only ETSI
> > members have the access information.
> >
> > according to this list the value 8947 is not allocated. Now, the
> > public listing information for EtherTypes bears a disclaimer that says
> >
> > *From:[email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf
> > Of *Thierry Ernst
> > TC ITS's GeoNetworking). Check the following document available on the
> > ETSI
> > server:
> >
> > ITS(13)000020
> > <http://docbox.etsi.org/ITS/ITS/05-CONTRIBUTIONS/2013/ITS%2813%2900002
> > 0_Ethernet_Type_Field_number_for_GeoNetworking.pdf>
> > http://docbox.etsi.org/ITS/ITS/05-CONTRIBUTIONS/2013/ITS(13)000020_Eth
> > ernet_Type_Field_number_for_GeoNetworking.pdf
> >
> > Regards,
> > Thierry.
> >
> >
> its

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:09:14 +0000

> From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:02 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: [email-masked]

Hi Alexandru,

You need to talk with IANA about this. That page is kept for historical reasons, as the responsibility for assignments and the authoritative information is with the IEEE. 

Regards,

Dan

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 11:10:22 +0100

> IEEE talk only hexa in their Ethertype files.

I tend to agree that #8947 is a hexadecimal notation also because the 
sharp sign preceding it, and because if it were decimal it would convert 
to 22F3 which is already reserved for trill.

I just watend to make sure.

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:55:51 +0100

Given current discussions, I think it may be worth considering a work
item about how to run IP over 802.11p.

One of the things to say would be whether or not this is IPv6 only or
IPv4 also.

This would say how this would work _without_ GeoNetworking.

It would agree on the EtherType and/or whether there are new ones,
several or only one, or reusing existing EtherTypes.

It could be as simple as to say that IP works over 802.11p just as it
works over 802.11b - no modifications.

What do you think?

Alex

Le 30/01/2013 11:10, Alexandru Petrescu a écrit :
>  sharp sign preceding it, and because if it were decimal it would
> convert to 22F3 which is already reserved for trill.
>
>>> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:00 PM To: [email-masked]
>>> Maybe you could ask them whether this number is hexa or decimal,
>>> so we know what to put in implementation (e.g. wireshark packet
>>> analyzers, and 802.11p/etsi-its implementations).
>>>
>>>> The documents that you are referring (on the ETSI server) are
>>>> not freely accessible. A password is required, and probably
>>>> only ETSI members have the access information.
>>>>
>>>> The responsibility for assigning EtherType values is with the
>>>> IEEE Registration Authority. They maintain a public list
>>>> (updated daily) at
>>>> and according to this list the value 8947 is not allocated.
>>>> Now, the public listing information for EtherTypes bears a
>>>> disclaimer that says
>>>>
>>>> * This is a partial listing of all assigned EtherType Fields.
>>>> Not
>>> all
>>>> Did ETSI require for this information not to be published? It
>>>> does not look useful if they want to encourage
>>>> interoperability
>>>>
>>>> *From:[email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] *On
>>>> Behalf Of *Thierry Ernst *Sent:* Wednesday, January 30, 2013
>>>> 11:11 AM *To:* [email-masked] *Subject:* Re: [its] What do we
>>>> need to make ITS WG go forward? - EtherType for ITS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alex,
>>>>
Alex
>>>> brought to
>>> VARIOUS
>>>> important issue for which there is no existing WG that could
>>>> work on it.
>>>>
>>>> Delegation - PMIP-based network mobility - IPv6 single-address
>>>> connecion 'sharing' with a cellular operator and a vehicular
>>>> moving network (type '64share' of v6ops). - Default Route with
>>>> DHCPv6.
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know.
>>>>
>>>> Yours,
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards, Stan
>>>>
>>>> far. Is there progress, or is there issues/efforts that need to
>>>> be completed and volunteered.
>>>>
>>>> بنعمروNabil Benamar* Professor of computer sciences Simulation
>>>> and Modelisation Laboratory Human Sciences Faculty of Meknes
>>>> Moulay Ismail* *University* Meknes, Morocco *GSM: * *+ 212 6
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
----------

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:47:36 +0100

Well, we do actually run IPv6 over 11p (with or without GeoNetworking), 
so I don't see what kind of issues there might be ...

Regards,
Thierry

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:16:44 +0100

Le 31/01/2013 14:47, Thierry Ernst a écrit :
>
> Well, we do actually run IPv6 over 11p (with or without
> GeoNetworking), so I don't see what kind of issues there might be
> ...

I have some clarification questions about EtherType and 802.11p and
GeoNetworking.

I guess when you run IPv6 over 11p with GeoNetworking, the Ethernet
header uses EtherType soon-to-be-0x8947, whereas when you run IPv6 over
11p without GeoNetworking, the Ethernet header uses EtherType 0x86DD.
This is just a supposition, I don't know how you run it.

Also, if I run IPv4 over 11p with GeoNetworking - should I use EtherType
soon-to-be-0x8947?  Or other?  I suppose that if I run IPv4 over 11p
without GeoNetworking I should use EtherType 0x0800, and if it's ARP
over 802.11p still without GeoNetworking then I should use EtherType 0x0806.

(the letter we've seen recently is not clear whether that allocation is
for GeoNetworking, for IP-over-802.11p, for ETSI ITS, for GeoNetworking
for IPv6, for GeoNetworking for IPv4, etc.  It is not clear either
whether GeoNetworking supports IPv4 or not, or under what form).

I also have some questions about the relationship between the nature of
some 802.11p links (no ESSID, absence of link-layer security - as
opposed to WiFi which has ESSID and link-layer security) and IP.

For example - will V2V prefix exchange using Router Advertisements work
easier on 802.11p links (easier than on WiFi), because the ESSID does
not need to be discovered, the ad-hoc network does not need to be formed
- suffices it to send packets on a certain channel.

(in a V2V draft one seems to say that the presence of Access Point is
absolutely necessary in order for 802.11p to work; but in our
experimentations this is not the case - it is possible to establish
direct vehicle-to-vehicle IP-over-802.11p communications without the
presence of a fixed 802.11p Access Point).

For another example - will IP prefer that the 802.11p channel in France
be 176, 178 or 180? (with WiFi, IP does not care because it can work on
any of the 11 channels equally well, but with 802.11p each of these
three channels seem to be reserved for "Services", "Control" and
"Services").

For another example - is all the security on these links entirely
relaying on IP layer security (IPsec, SeND, EAP, PANA)?

I think finding consensus on some of these questions could lead to
interoperability.

Alex

> Regards, Thierry
>> Given current discussions, I think it may be worth considering a
>> work item about how to run IP over 802.11p.
>>
>> One of the things to say would be whether or not this is IPv6 only
>> or IPv4 also.
>>
>> It could be as simple as to say that IP works over 802.11p just as
>> it works over 802.11b - no modifications.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>> I tend to agree that #8947 is a hexadecimal notation also
>>> because the sharp sign preceding it, and because if it were
>>> decimal it would convert to 22F3 which is already reserved for
>>> trill.
>>>
>>>>> - EtherType for ITS
>>>>> Maybe you could ask them whether this number is hexa or
>>>>> decimal, so we know what to put in implementation (e.g.
>>>>> wireshark packet analyzers, and 802.11p/etsi-its
>>>>> implementations).
>>>>>
>>>>>> The documents that you are referring (on the ETSI server)
>>>>>> are not freely accessible. A password is required, and
>>>>>> probably only ETSI members have the access information.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The responsibility for assigning EtherType values is with
>>>>>> the IEEE Registration Authority. They maintain a public
>>>>>> list (updated daily) at
>>>>>> * This is a partial listing of all assigned EtherType
>>>>>> Fields. Not
>>>>> all
>>>>>> Did ETSI require for this information not to be published?
>>>>>> It does not look useful if they want to encourage
>>>>>> interoperability
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:[email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>>>>> *On Behalf Of *Thierry Ernst *Sent:* Wednesday, January
>>>>>> 30, 2013 11:11 AM *To:* [email-masked] *Subject:* Re: [its]
>>>>>> What do we need to make ITS WG go forward? - EtherType for
>>>>>> ITS
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alex,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IEEE have assigned Ethernet Type Field number #8947 for
>>>>>> ITS use (ETSI TC ITS's GeoNetworking). Check the following
>>>>>> document available on the ETSI server:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ITS(13)000020
>>>>>> EtherType 0x0707 described in ITS documents, implemented,
>>>>>> but not specified by IEEE nor reserved at IANA - does not
>>>>>> make it interoperable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sector-driven, so it means the different issues pertaining
>>>>>> to ITS should be brought to
>>>>> VARIOUS
>>>>>> existing WGs, and a WG should only be created if there is
>>>>>> an important issue for which there is no existing WG that
>>>>>> could work on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> previously heard to make it a working group. So what
>>>>>> should we exactly do, to achieve this goal ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> list [email-masked]

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 19:46:37 +0100

Le 28/01/2013 18:36, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) a écrit :
>> I have no objection as only if the participants in this group
>> (after rough consensus) are happy to do such discussion in MANET
>> WG, because I am already participating in both as some do  :-)
>>
>> participants join here and discuss ITS in this list, to make a
>> value for this list and the efforts done before for this group at
>> least, and then we can see which direction we will go as consensus.
>> It is inscope to discuss ITS here but I think still out of scope in
>> MANET WG (not chartered yet).
>>
>> I think names of groups don't matter it is the effort and welling
>> of participants that make the change in technology,
>
> We agree there - the name of the group doesn't matter. I'm basing my
>  opinion on the work to be done - ITS and MANET are operating in the
>  same general solution space. To create a separate group is to invite
>  the same types of issues that MANET has with ROLL (e.g. when is a
> sensor net a MANET?).

I agree that we shouldn't go towards issues similar to MANET-vs-RoLL.  I
think that could be avoided if, for example, we look in ITS more towards
_not_ routing protocols.

For example, we may look towards addressing instead: how are the
addresses formed and distributed within a network of mobile vehicles.

As far as I know, not many MANET works designed how to form addresses or
how to distribute addresses.  I think MANET works concentrated more on
the routing protocols which execute once the addressing is already
there, designed, configured.

Another example is about IP-over-foo.  As far as I know IP-over-foo is
very much out of scope for MANET, and even out of scope for RoLL.  I
think IP-over-foo could be kept in ITS email list.

A more sensitive issue is about this V2V prefix exchange.  Two proposals
exist to use IPv6 Router Advertisements to exchange routes between two
vehicles.  This kind of operation approaches a lot to what a routing
protocol does.  But if we look closer I think we can find some
differences.  For example AODV has this notion of actively discovering a
route (RREQ/RREP) across multiple subnets, whereas the V2V drafts seem
to be periodic broadcasts on a single link.  Other examples exist (e.g.
position with respect to loop free constructions).

Also, it is worth mentioning that MANET is not the only WG whose outputs
may be in relationship with what ITS needs.  There is also 6man WG,
v6ops, netext, dmm, to name but a few in my perspective.

Alex

>>>>>  would need its own IETF group. The work here is the same
>>>>> (IMO) as what is taking place in MANET. I would vote that
>>>>> this work be taken up in MANET.
>>>>
>>>> Stan,
>>>>
>>>> exchange - VIN-based IP addressing scheme - ND Prefix
>>> Yes, I think that all of these issues should be discussed in
>>> MANET. A large portion of the networks I deploy are the
>>> vehicular-type networks that ITS is discussing. So at least for
>>> me, this is a very good fit. Instead of creating a new working
>>> group, and potentially running into the conflicts that creates
>>> (reference recent discussions about the difference between MANET
>>>  and ROLL), it would be possibly a re-charter for MANET to
>>> include some of these items.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards, Stan
>>>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 20:09:25 +0100

Le 28/01/2013 18:52, Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0) a écrit :
> Agreed.  Perhaps ITS can create a draft charter document that can be
> used to modify/update the manet charter.   It is much easier to
> start with something.

I am considering this idea to put on paper a draft charter proposal to
have something to discuss about.

Currently I think about starting by reusing the document structure of a
recently chartered WG.

I would sketch it with 1) problem statement/reqs/scenarios, relationship
to external SDOs, 2) solutions, 3) MIB.

In the solution space I could write about:
- IP over 802.11p
- IP addressing methods
- V2V and V2V2I connectivity establishment
- mobility management protocols for vehicles.

This could quickly become too ambitious, or too large.

I could also draft it like this: scenarios and problems, study of
existing solutions, identify whether there's something to do at IETF, end.

If you have suggestions please contact me privately.

Alex

>
> Will
>
>
>>>
>>> I think names of groups don't matter it is the effort and
>>> welling of participants that make the change in technology,
>>
>> We agree there - the name of the group doesn't matter. I'm basing
>> my opinion on the work to be done - ITS and MANET are operating in
>> the same general solution space. To create a separate group is to
>> invite the same types of issues that MANET has with ROLL (e.g.
>> when is a sensor net a MANET?).
>>
>> Stan
>>
>>
>>>
>
>
>