Subject: [its] Draft Charter proposal

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 20:49:31 +0100

Hello,

Following discussions I am drafting a Charter proposal for Intelligent 
Transportation Systems at IETF.

Can we commit on some work items?
Can we discuss with MANET WG about work items in MANET?
Can we add other work items?  Or eliminate some?
Can we decide milestones?

Please comment,

Alex

----------------------------------------------------------------------
	      Intelligent Transportation Systems at IETF
			Draft Charter Proposal
			 February 15th, 2013
		 http://ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

Intelligent Transportation Systems (its)
----------------------------------------
Current Status: informal bar BoF

Chairs:
   TBD
   TBD

Assigned Area Director:
   TBD (Jari Arkko and Ralph Droms helped at a stage)

Mailing list
   Address: [email-masked]
   To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
   Archive:
   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/its/current/maillist.html

Draft Charter Proposal:

Context
-------
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) are composed of mobile and
fixed computing and communicating equipment.  The fixed access points
are deployed along terrestrial roads (e.g. Road-Side Units), shores
along water paths; alternatively, mobile or fixed access points may be
deployed above ground; they all offer wireless access to equipment
deployed in mobile vehicles (e.g. On-Board Units).  The entire system
is connected to the Internet through one or several IP paths.  In this
system, disjoint and heterogeneous radio systems are used (e.g. a
vehicle uses two different radios).

Due to the mobile nature of the system, several problems exist with
respect to IP addressing and route establishment such that Internet
communications can be realized (a typical IP network is using mostly
IP addresses topologically valid at a single point, and relatively
stable routing system).  In addition, several new problems specific to
vehicular communications at application layer are exposed when the
communication protocol is IP.

Several Standards Development Organizations outside IETF work towards
developping protocols for vehicular communications.  In some cases IP
protocols are used for transport, in other cases IP protocols are
modified for the purpose.  The examples of SDOs and respective groups
and documents are: ETSI ITS, ISO TC, IEEE 802.11p, AUTOSAR, IPSO.

A number of IETF protocols are being considered in the context of
Intelligent Transportation Systems - most notably IPv6, Mobile IPv6,
ND, ULA, DHCPv6.  Others are not excluded.  At IETF several Working
Groups such as IPv6, V6OPS, DHC, MIF, MANET, DMM, produce work which
is highly pertinent to the ITS context.

Ongoing work
------------
Overall, in this group, the ongoing work items are to identify the 
following:
(1) vehicular-specific problems to be solved with IETF protocols,
(2) interactions with SDOs,
(3) existing IETF protocols which may solve the problems.
(4) EtherTypes for transporting IP over a MAC specific to vehicular
     communications.
(5) country-level frequencies for long-range vehicular communications
     with an IP-friendly MAC layer.

Potential work items
--------------------
The following potential work items exist:

Scenarios and requirements for vehicular communications will be
developped which introduce at IETF the terms V2V, V2I, V2R and
intra-vehicular paradigms.

One generic use case should be identified as supporting basis for
further developments.  This could be under the form of an instrumented
ambulance.  The ambulance is connected to the Internet and offers
wireless and wired access to a large number of individual equipments
deployed in-vehicle.  There is a need to identify which existing
protocols may be reused to realize the connection between the
ambulance and the hospital.

IP-over-foo, where foo is one particular link-layer which is
identified as very pertinent for vehicular communications.  One
particular example is IEEE 802.11p, but is not the only one;
clarifications whether IP-over-80211p is actually possible, due to
lack of country-level regulation.  IP is not 'safety' but rather
'entertainment'.  Other link-layers which are pertinent are
802.11abgn, and 802.11ai, and 802.11ak.  The preferred ones will be
those allowing long-range communications between vehicles, at
high-power levels.

Addressing mechanisms for vehicular communications: methods of
converting a Vehicular Identification Number, or geographical
coordinates, into an IPv6 address, and vice-versa.  Scoping of IPv6
addresses: addresses within a vehicle, between vehicles, to
infrastructure.  Distributing addresses between vehicles, using
dynamic mechanisms, such as DHCP or ND, which respect constraints of
applications.

Route exchanges between vehicles, and between vehicles and road-side
units.  This includes the identification of a need to realize the
exchanges, the constraints related to loop-free graphs and networks
which scale to large sizes, their interaction with the imposed
physical topology.

Fast Network Transport Protocol is a protocol designed at ISO for
vehicular communications.  Feedback is solicited from IETF about this
protocol.

GeoNetworking is a protocol designed at ETSI.  Feedback is solicited
from IETF about this protocol.

Milestones:
   Mar 2013 - Meet in Orlando
   Jul 2013 - Meet in Berlin

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 02:51:36 +0100

> Can we commit on some work items?
yes I think we can
> Can we discuss with MANET WG about work items in MANET?
we already got offer from co-chair (recharter-manet), but I don't
prefer to mix the MANET work in ITS work because believe they are
different scopes, MANET is general purpose but ITS is specific scope,
we need both in ietf,
> Can we add other work items?  Or eliminate some?
it is better to start with simple solid requirements to establish
> Can we decide milestones?
maybe two drafts; ITS framework, and ITS applicability.
> Please comment,

Regarding the charter, it is a great start to have discussion on the
new charter, which I think that IETF should think about the
requirement of this WG. IMO, the ITS applicability still not clear
from charter, I will try to add my thoughts,

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 03:06:54 +0100

Hi Alex,

> is highly pertinent to the ITS context.

What about ROLL, I think it is more related to ITS, I think we should
consider that our intelligent systems/devices need use some of ROLL
techniques in V2V and V2I

ITS = ROLL + MANET

IMHO, that the chater proposed, mentions the ITS applicability that
should include MANET applicability and ROLL applicability.

AB

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 08:39:23 +0000

I'd be surprised if Alex disagrees - or Ryuji for that matter.

We were a bit too mush ahead of phase but the combination of local and global mobility is what we wanted to achieve with MANEMO some years ago.

RPL has the exact properties that we were looking for at the time. The global mobility can be achieved a number of ways, but is seems that making the road side unit the locator is the simple thing. In that case, we have a number of possibilities of the shelf, including LISP, PMIP, or MIP/NEMO-proxy such as discussed in global HAHA for DMM.

Cheers,

Pascal

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun
Sent: samedi 16 février 2013 03:07
To: Alexandru Petrescu
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [its] Draft Charter proposal

Hi Alex,

> is highly pertinent to the ITS context.

What about ROLL, I think it is more related to ITS, I think we should consider that our intelligent systems/devices need use some of ROLL techniques in V2V and V2I

ITS = ROLL + MANET

IMHO, that the chater proposed, mentions the ITS applicability that should include MANET applicability and ROLL applicability.

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

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:22:16 +0100

Le 16/02/2013 03:06, Abdussalam Baryun a écrit :
>> Intelligent Transportation Systems - most notably IPv6, Mobile
>> IPv6, ND, ULA, DHCPv6.  Others are not excluded.  At IETF several
>> Working Groups such as IPv6, V6OPS, DHC, MIF, MANET, DMM, produce
>> work which is highly pertinent to the ITS context.
>

Abdussalam,

Thank you for the comments.  I am ready to add something in the Charter
proposal about RoLL, also because also PAscal talks it.

But let me comment further.

RoLL stands for Routing over Low-Power and Lossy Links.  But with V2V
one would be looking more at high-power links, because the higher the
power the higher the speed of vehicles (e.g. in France at 100mW WiFi a
V2V entertaining videoconference allows for two convoyed vehicles speed
of around 90km/h, because the 100mW corresponds to approximately 50meter
distance, which is the security distance in France for speed of 90km/h,
no more).  This would mean it's impossible to use RoLL
on a highway where the recommended speed is much above 90km/h.

RoLL is designed for links in the short-range family, like 802.15.4.
Whereas for V2V one would look at longer-range.

Inside a vehicle, RoLL would run ok on lossy links.  But we also
consider in a vehicle to use more reliable links, like Ethernet cable,
OBD-II interfaces, CAN.  Currently AUTOSAR SDO seems interested in IP in
vehicles, but I am not sure whether they mention RoLL?  In the Alison
slides there seems to be mention of a AUTOSAR ECU protocol, but not sure
what is it?

Now of course, one could say that the RPL protocol could run on
anything, not necessarily low-power links and lossy links.  At which
point I could reply that there are other routing protocols which could
run on anything as well.

But what RoLL doesn't have and what we'd propose to do here is a
mechanism to exchange routes, and to do address autoconfiguration for
vehicles.

Depending on these aspects, we need to identify how to add RoLL in the
ITS picture.

What do you think?

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:30:40 +0100

Le 16/02/2013 09:39, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) a écrit :
> We were a bit too mush ahead of phase but the combination of local
> and global mobility is what we wanted to achieve with MANEMO some
> years ago.

Well, it didn't pursue in 2007...

> RPL has the exact properties that we were looking for at the time.

But Pascal, RPL is something which could do anything?  I thought it were
only for wireless sensor networks, low-power and lossy links.  In V2V
one needs high-power links and in-vehicle one appreciates the non-lossy
reliability of Ethernet.

Where would RPL fit?

> The global mobility can be achieved a number of ways, but is seems
> that making the road side unit the locator is the simple thing.

Please explain, what does it mean to make the RSU the locator.

In some cases RSUs are needed, and in other cases direct V2V
communications between vehicles are needed as well (w/o infrastructure).
  For these V2V cases, RPL would not be needed, right?

> In that case, we have a number of possibilities of the shelf,
> including LISP, PMIP, or MIP/NEMO-proxy such as discussed in global
> HAHA for DMM.

I think I agree.

PMIP with an RSU as MAG is tempting.  Sandra wrote private email about
VIP-WAVE which is documented in a quality paper at
http://bbcr.uwaterloo.ca/~slcesped/i/preprintVIPWAVE.pdf

LISP yes could be analyzed to see how it fits the OBU/RSU distinction.

GlobalHAHA would need to be suggested to DMM, not here, right?  (I don't
know what you meant?).

I need to modify the Charter proposal according to your suggestions.  I
will do so soon.

Alex

>
> Cheers,
>
> Pascal
>
> -----Original Message----- From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun Sent:
> samedi 16 février 2013 03:07 To: Alexandru Petrescu Cc: [email-masked]
> AB _______________________________________________ its mailing list
> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 11:39:21 +0100

Hi Alex,

IMHO, the proposed charter [1] is more technical than describing the
use-case, which is good to have technical but needs the clarify of
use-cases. The ITS V2V is using MANEMO, but as recommended [2] within
the Vehicle we will need ROLL [3] for many small devices, to make a
smart/intelligent system. I think the ITS has networking of different
capability devices. We need to benefit from smart cities
services/applications to make the ITS more intelligent. MANET does not
consider intelligents or sensitivity to population/transport
environment requirements, this is the beauty of ITS. As you mentioned
the ROLL does not consider high power devices too (ITS considers both
high and low). So their charter and all IETF WGs have different scope
than ITS.

I recommend that we mention the smart city use-case for ITS which I
think this is never chartered in IETF (new use-case), and it's prety
much related. The ITS is important for networking country or world
transports to make them more intelligent (i.e. the proposed WG is not
general purpose, but specifc for transportation systems).

 We need to state our ITS system requirements/services for transports
within cities and between cities or countries, making them smart. The
use-case of ITS is different than ROLL and MANET but ITS may (not
MUST) use the both techniques to be adaptive to its new IETF use-case.

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/its/current/msg00220.html
[2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/its/current/msg00224.html
[3] ROLL is routing over LLN

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:04:33 +0100

> one needs high-power links and in-vehicle one appreciates the non-lossy

I mean to use the RPL not fully fit in the ITS, a hybrid routing of
RPL, OLSR, and other may be suitable.

I think RPL can be used on/in the Vehicles (i.e. many small devices
needed), its links and devices are possibile to failure, I don't think
Ethernet reliability can solve all situations. The ITS environment is
a lossy one with high probability of damage.

Do you think the ITS is reliable because of the Ethernet techniques?

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:43:31 +0100

On 2/16/13, Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]> wrote:
> RoLL stands for Routing over Low-Power and Lossy Links.

ROLL is Routing over LLN, its lossy network not only lossy links, I
think ITS is runing for lossy networks,

>  But with V2V

ROLL is not for high power, but don't forget that Vehicles are not all
large as cars or trucks, they may be small transporters machines in
buildings/homes.

> Whereas for V2V one would look at longer-range.

Why we make the scope narrow to longer-range, I think ITS needs both
long and short range to become intelligent otherwise it will not
become intelligent,

> vehicles, but I am not sure whether they mention RoLL?

Yes I like to have cables and/or wireless inside vehicles, depends on
the transport resource and reason actually.

> point I could reply that there are other routing protocols which could

The bueaty of RPL is that it used for buildings and homes, so it can
be used in our intelligence for our ITS. Most transports in the world
are between buildings and homes :-)

> mechanism to exchange routes, and to do address autoconfiguration for

IMO, we only need to use the RoLL techniques which help in our scope
and ignore its techniques that is not related. We may take some other
techniques as well or create a new mechanism depending which is better
way on the discussion table.

> Depending on these aspects, we need to identify how to add RoLL in the

Yes, I agree totally,

> What do you think?

I think we are on the right track to best transports :)

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:00:51 +0100

I suggest to consider the [1] [2] and [3] into the proposal if
possible, or I may send my proposal when available, which is based on
the following:

a) ITS use-case or applicability: transportation within a city and
country, and between countries. The purpose of transport, the
transporter-resources and its networking is important to be defined
for ITS.

b) The framework of ITS should consider techniques used in IETF which
maybe related to ITS (as all related to Internet IP), however, the
framework should be a new approach that is scoped for ITS.

c) work needed to be done including milestones.

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/its/current/msg00224.html
[2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/its/current/msg00237.html
[3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/its/current/msg00235.html

AB

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:28:35 +0000

Hello Alex

> RPL has the exact properties that we were looking for at the time.

But Pascal, RPL is something which could do anything?  I thought it were only for wireless sensor networks, low-power and lossy links.  In V2V one needs high-power links and in-vehicle one appreciates the non-lossy reliability of Ethernet.

[Pascal] RPL can be economical but is not restricted to that. RPL builds spanning graphs from/to particular destinations, whne other IGPs otimize any to any. 

Where would RPL fit?

[Pascal] Well, 6TSCH could fit inside a car to save heavy wiring, and 6TSCH uses RPL. (6TSCH is a non WG ML under Internet area  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch ) 
RPL could also fit between cars when they move as a fleet, but not between unrelated cars going around one another. I understand that geo addresses are proven to work well in that case.

[Pascal] Examples of that is the RSU acts a MIP4 foreign agent, a PMIP MAG, or a LISP RLOC. Say you have a fleet in motion, that runs RPL inside the fleet for local interconnection. When the fleet approaches the RSU, it can use the RSU for global mobility.

In some cases RSUs are needed, and in other cases direct V2V communications between vehicles are needed as well (w/o infrastructure).
  For these V2V cases, RPL would not be needed, right?

[Pascal] Well, then again it can be a scenario thing. RPL could be used for a convoy but not for unrelated cars going in unrelated directions.

I think I agree.

PMIP with an RSU as MAG is tempting.  Sandra wrote private email about VIP-WAVE which is documented in a quality paper at http://bbcr.uwaterloo.ca/~slcesped/i/preprintVIPWAVE.pdf

GlobalHAHA would need to be suggested to DMM, not here, right?  (I don't know what you meant?).

[Pascal]  One aspect in global HAHA is the proxy Home Agent. Proxies are widely deployed (SGSNs, RSUs ...). Proxies do not have home links but have a trust relationship  with Home agents. The MN binds to the proxy, the proxy binds to the MN HA. Then proxies to Route Optimization to one another and bypass home agents.

I need to modify the Charter proposal according to your suggestions.  I will do so soon.

[pascal] cool, thanks Alex.