Subject: [its] A bit of discussion towards a BoF

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:12:38 +0200

<individual hat>

Hi everyone,

I've just had a very good discussion with Alexandru about how to proceed
toward an ITS BoF.  Let me state on the outset that I am NOT a subject
matter expert when it comes to intra- or inter- vehicle communications. 
This is merely advice to help focus the work.

To begin with, let me recommend that everyone who is interested read two
RFCs:

  * RFC-5434 give you guidance on how to hold a successful BoF
  * RFC-5218 talks about What Makes for a Successful Protocol

Quoting from RFC-5434:

   In those cases [where there is an intent to create a WG], the goal of the
   BOF is to demonstrate that the community has agreement that:

      - there is a problem that needs solving, and the IETF is the right
        group to attempt solving it.

      - there is a critical mass of participants willing to work on the
        problem (e.g., write drafts, review drafts, etc.).

      - the scope of the problem is well defined and understood, that
        is, people generally understand what the WG will work on (and
        what it won't) and what its actual deliverables will be.

      - there is agreement that the specific deliverables (i.e.,
        proposed documents) are the right set.

      - it is believed that the WG has a reasonable probability of
        having success (i.e., in completing the deliverables in its
        charter in a timely fashion).

As I understand from Alexandru, there are three separate activities that
come under the rubrik of vehicle communications:

  * Establishment of networking from vehicle to ground
  * Establishment of networking from vehicle to vehicle
  * Alerts to vehicles based on locality

I've suggested to Alexandru that a successful BoF proposal will clearly
state these points, taking into account existing work.  E.g., it should
be shown why existing solutions, if any, aren't appropriate.  If the
charter is organized in this fashion, one can clearly see that there are
three related work items.  I write this by way of saying I think the
current charter is a bit long and can be trimmed down into:

1.  What the problem space is
2.  What specific areas will be addressed by a WG, complete with
reasonable starting points in the form of drafts.
3.  What is left for others
4.  Relationship to other organizations
5.  Milestones

That's the charter.  What happens in a BoF is different.

There is a substantial body of existing work.  That shouldn't be
scattered in a charter, but the relationship to other bodies must be
mentioned.  Furthermore, someone should propose a map of what we think
is appropriate for the IETF and why and what is NOT appropriate, perhaps
being done by other organizations.  For instance we wouldn't typically
get into L2 framing.

In my own head, a specification for IP over 802.11p sounds like a winner
if it varies from any other 802.11 network, as we don't do one line
RFCs.  Michael and Ted have both mentioned that having fewer goals is
better.  Perhaps this is one way to trim.

The output for V2V might be as simple as an informational document on
out to apply existing solutions (e.g., MANET, RPL, etc).  If not, then
someone has to say why these aren't appropriate.  A strong argument one
way or the other (or both) should be made.

In answering the question as to whether the IETF is the right place to
do the work, one test is whether the right people are actually in the
room.  Will this stuff be implemented in the car?  That will go to how
important the work is.  Very likely the AD would ask the question, “How
many people would implement this sort of thing if well specified?”  If
no hands go up, that won't be good.

Eliot

---

From: "Bless, Roland (TM)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:35:38 +0200

Hi Eliot,

Am 15.04.2013 12:12, schrieb Eliot Lear:
> I write this by way of saying I think the current charter is a bit long and can be trimmed down into:
> 
> 2.  What specific areas will be addressed by a WG, complete with reasonable starting points in the form of drafts.

+1 also for everything else you wrote.

Regards,
 Roland

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:05:27 +0200

Le 15/04/2013 12:12, Eliot Lear a écrit :
[...]
> As I understand from Alexandru, there are three separate activities
> that come under the rubrik of vehicle communications:
>

In general yes, that is correct.  However, I think I mis-explained the
current status of the three intended activities.  They are:

- establishment of networking from vehicle to vehicle.
- IPv6-straight-over-802.11p.
- IPv6-based distribution of content in a geographic area,
   geonetworking, alerts to vehicles based on locality.

Establishment of networking from vehicle to ground is considered
achieved to a large extent, by using existing IPv6 protocols.  This
would be out of scope of work.

Alex