Subject: [its] Not approved BoF ITS Berlin

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:41:15 +0200

Hello participants to ITS email list,

The IESG has not approved the request for BoF ITS in Berlin.

I still have to summarize the information I receive about the process,
the reasons, the next steps;  I will email the list shortly.

In the mean time, do not hesitate to make questions.

Yours,

Alex

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 20:08:05 -0400

> The IESG has not approved the request for BoF ITS in Berlin.

Please realize that there were like 16 BOF requests for the Berlin meeting.
Not only is there a lack of non-conflicting time slots, but only so many WG
can be spun upon in a given amount of time.

So some of the reason is not specific to ITS, but I think that ITS was not as
clear as it needs to be as to it's charter.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:46:12 +0200

Hello Michael,

I can understand there were many BoF requests this time and a selection
had to be made.

I have been indicated that IESG thought that this is an interesting and
important problem space, and worthy of further consideration.  If we
want it to succeed we need something considerably smaller scoped.

Relationships to other SDOs can turn to the advantage of this activity
_if_ we understand the SDO scope and interest, helping avoid duplicates
and clarifying which technique is better suited where.

Participation to this list of industry stakeholders and alliances is of
high importance towards the scoping of needed work.

Relationships to IETF groups is also important, and the ATOCA activity
is a new facet yet to uncover.

Given these reasons, and other than the ongoing good activities, we have
been recommended the following:
- pursue discussion towards identifying 1 area among the 3, involving
   industry interests.
- hold a bar BoF in Berlin.
- uncover ATOCA before Berlin.

Yours,

Alex

Le 24/06/2013 02:08, Michael Richardson a écrit :
> Please realize that there were like 16 BOF requests for the Berlin
> meeting. Not only is there a lack of non-conflicting time slots, but
> only so many WG can be spun upon in a given amount of time.
>
> So some of the reason is not specific to ITS, but I think that ITS
> was not as clear as it needs to be as to it's charter.
>
>
> -- Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software
> Works
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ its mailing list
> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:14:18 +0200

> want it to succeed we need something considerably smaller scoped.

Could I know what was the respond specifically?
> and clarifying which technique is better suited where.

If something is missing in IETF then we focus on it, why we have to
present the WORLD to check things don't duplicate, I think things in
the WORLD is already duplicated every where. Does management in IETF
don't understand other SDOs? I recommend we focus on the technology
not procedures, others should do that job.

> high importance towards the scoping of needed work.

Why we make it difficult, industry are in competition so they have
many reasons sometimes not to participate, does IESG think there is no
interest in industry? if they think that do they have proof. Do we
have proof that industry is interested in this WG, I think yes (they
have interest to the establish but not directly participate).

> is a new facet yet to uncover.

We already mentioned the relationship to other groups (each of them
have different charter), Why is it not clear, not sure?

> - uncover ATOCA before Berlin.

Yes we need to do it in Berlin, because I think the interest is in
Europe region more than the North America region (Majority of
participants).

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:19:20 +0200

Could I know what was the respond, or if there is a reference I can
collect it? I want full respond not only summary? Sometimes I think we
should close this WG if the IESG is not allowing it to continue :-(

AB

On 6/21/13, Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]> wrote:
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:48:43 +0200

Le 25/06/2013 10:19, Abdussalam Baryun a écrit :
> collect it? I want full respond not only summary?

Abdussalam,

There is no one full official response.  There is a general 'do a bar
bof' indication from IESG.  Until now we ITS held very small bar BoFs
('informal meetings') but now IESG tells us to do a bar BoF.  It is
different.  I hope for higher attendance to this bar BoF.

A number of people at IESG are active and positive about this effort.
They want us to succeed.

> Sometimes I think we should close this WG if the IESG is not
> allowing it to continue :-(

There is frustration also here, but I see it this way.

IESG did not tell us to stop continuing.  They said we should continue
this way, and identify one area on which to do the work.  There are
currently 3 areas (IPv6-over-80211p, 'geo-' work, 1-hop addressing and
routing).  Until we have that clearer we can't hold a BoF.  That's what
they said.

Also, I have witnessed several kinds of BoFs/WGs at IETF that were
successful so-and-so.  We don't want a WG which is successful so-and-so,
right?

Alex

>> I still have to summarize the information I receive about the
>> process, the reasons, the next steps;  I will email the list
>> shortly.
>>
>> Alex _______________________________________________ its mailing
>> list [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>
>
>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:24:53 +0200

Hi Alex,

Thanks, I am ok not negative :-), as long as I get a clear respond
what they need and we will do that to progress. I want to see progress
clear, not arguing with the IESG. I feel we are now in stage of (NOT
APPROVE, is negative respond not encouraging). That means that we have
to submit a new one and they still can say not approved again. From
your message it can be understood that you beleive that they are
saying we (Will Approve subject to clarifications of this and this),
but I don't share your beleive only if the respond is clear as well.

> different.  I hope for higher attendance to this bar BoF.

They SHOULD consider remote participation as well, and I think we will
get higher attendance this time.

> A number of people at IESG are active and positive about this effort.

Ok, that is nice, but if that is true why I don't see progress, I
think this group is very important but is delayed. The number of
people SHOULD not be an issue in their consideration of approvals, the
issue SHOULD be the need of technology. If ETSI is doing alot of work
in this field, why the IETF is not progressing in such field (not
successful approach, to wait for numbers its quality that counts).

> this way, and identify one area on which to do the work.

The IESG has no authority to tell community to stop or continue. We do
what we feel better but both should be clear in their decisions. I
feel IESG is not clear if they don't post an input in this list saying
what was the respond. Then I can hold their respond and follow to
progress.

> There are
> routing).
> Until we have that clearer we can't hold a BoF.  That's what
> they said.

Ok, so I will choose not to separate ITS into areas, why did they do
that? I recommend we focus on the ITS and see what is better for us
and the ITS to standard first. However, I think we already done that
in the charter.

AB

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:32:21 +0200

Hi AB,

The guidelines for successful BoFs can be found in RFC-5434[1]. 
Alexandru has done a very good job at getting things going.  Just
because the IESG passed on this BoF at this next meeting doesn't mean
the work is unimportant.  My impression is otherwise, but it's not *yet*
crisply enough defined.

> should close this WG if the IESG is not allowing it to continue :-(
The BoF  proposed to tackle three rather distinct issues:

# establishment of IP networking between neighboring vehicles using either
MANET protocols or 1-hop ICMP protocol,
# layering of IPv6 over IEEE 802.11p communication technology and
# IPv6-based network-layer distribution of content in a geographic area

In the latter case, we have work going on relating to emergency alerts
in the ATOCA working group, and we don't yet understand the overlap.  In
the case of 802.11p,  the exact problem to be addressed to get IPv6
running on it isn't clear and therefore whether it should be addressed
in IEEE 802.11 or by us is also not clear.  In the case of v2v
communications, here we need to understand a bit more why existing
protocol suites aren't sufficient. 

But above and beyond all of this there should be some confidence that
the results will be accepted by the industry.  We know they play heavily
in ISO TC-207.  See [1] for a series of standards that are either
adopted or in progress.  ETSI is also in this space.  Will the
manufacturers adopt our work as well?  Some additional activity on this
list might prove convincing.

And then there is the fact that the IETF is limited in the number of
BoFs we can support.

This space is both interesting and important.  If we can get to a point
that we can see that there will be adoption, and that the goals are
achievable in a reasonable period of time, then I would expect a WG to
be formed.  Vancouver offers an additional opportunity for a formal
BoF.  In the meantime, take advantage of Berlin to meet, discuss, and
figure these questions out, and zero down to specific actionable areas.

I will be available for any and all of these discussions. 

Eliot

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5434
[2]
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_tc_browse.htm?commid=54706&published=on&development=on

---

From: "Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:39:26 -0500

Alex,

This ITS group is currently just a mailing list.  It is not a Working Group.

In order to become a working group, we need a concise, bounded piece of work
related to the use of internet technologies and protocols (either existing,
something that needs development)  that needs to be done and sufficient
interest and energy to accomplish the work.

IMHO, this has yet to be well articulated and probably the reason why IESG
has not granted a BOF.  You want a successful BOF with the outcome of a
charter on what problem a working group would work to solve as well as a
rough schedule.  IMHO, an unsuccessful BOF is death to forming any working
group.  Rarely is a second BOF held.  So, the suggestion of a Bar BOF is
actually a way to get the group to focus the problem space and do their
homework in the hope that it will lead to a successful IETF sanctioned BOF.

While I agree that most work in ITS appears to be coming from Europe,
concentrating on a Europe only solution would probably not be a way to get
IESG approval of a working group.

The bottom line is that we need to draft a working group charter indicating
what problem or problems need to be solved with Internet technologies.  To
go into a BOF, you would probably want a Charter and a Problem Statement
Draft - even for a bar BOF.  This will form the basis for focused
discussion.

That being said, I am just an observer at this point.  I am currently
working Space Suit technology, but see similarities with general ITS - not
just Internet related. Note, the technical term for space suit is
Extra-vehicular Mobile Unit (EMU).  It is really a self contained
mini-spacecraft with critical life-support, communications, and informatics.
These map closely to ITS critical controls, on-board and wide area
communications and entertainment systems.

-- Will Ivancic

> From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 03:19:20 -0500
> To: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [its] Not approved BoF ITS Berlin
>

---

From: "Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:49:19 -0500

I know there is a draft charter that was let to the mailing list, but it is
fairly general. To me, it indicates there are lots of potential areas to
work and we need to figure out what to do.  I don't disagree, but a good
charter that would lead to a working group probably needs to be more focused
indicated the specific problem that needs to  be address and why along with
an approach.

I think we need a well articulated problem statement.

-- Will

> From: "Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0)" <[email-masked]>
> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:39:26 -0500
> To: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>, Alexandru Petrescu
> <[email-masked]>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:57:04 +0200

I agree we need to articulate a Problem Statement draft and a draft
Charter for Berlin, focused on one work area.

For the EMU unit, which of these areas would be more helpful?

1. establishment of IP networking between neighboring vehicles using
    either MANET protocols or 1-hop ICMP protocol,

2. layering of IPv6 over IEEE 802.11p communication technology

3. IPv6-based network-layer distribution of content in a geographic area

Alex

Le 25/06/2013 14:49, Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0) a écrit :
> I know there is a draft charter that was let to the mailing list, but
> it is fairly general. To me, it indicates there are lots of potential
> areas to work and we need to figure out what to do.  I don't
> disagree, but a good charter that would lead to a working group
> probably needs to be more focused indicated the specific problem that
> needs to  be address and why along with an approach.
>
>> From: "Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0)"
>> <[email-masked]> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:39:26 -0500
>> To: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>, Alexandru
>> Petrescu <[email-masked]> Cc: "[email-masked]"
>> <[email-masked]> Subject: Re: [its] Not approved BoF ITS Berlin
>>
>> Alex,
>>
>> In order to become a working group, we need a concise, bounded
>> piece of work related to the use of internet technologies and
>> protocols (either existing, something that needs development) that
>> needs to be done and sufficient interest and energy to accomplish
>> the work.
>>
>> IMHO, this has yet to be well articulated and probably the reason
>> why IESG has not granted a BOF.  You want a successful BOF with the
>> outcome of a charter on what problem a working group would work to
>> solve as well as a rough schedule.  IMHO, an unsuccessful BOF is
>> death to forming any working group.  Rarely is a second BOF held.
>> So, the suggestion of a Bar BOF is actually a way to get the group
>> to focus the problem space and do their homework in the hope that
>> it will lead to a successful IETF sanctioned BOF.
>>
>> While I agree that most work in ITS appears to be coming from
>> Europe, concentrating on a Europe only solution would probably not
>>  be a way to get IESG approval of a working group.
>>
>> The bottom line is that we need to draft a working group charter
>> indicating what problem or problems need to be solved with Internet
>> technologies.  To go into a BOF, you would probably want a Charter
>> and a Problem Statement Draft - even for a bar BOF.  This will form
>> the basis for focused discussion.
>>
>> That being said, I am just an observer at this point.  I am
>> currently working Space Suit technology, but see similarities with
>>  general ITS - not just Internet related. Note, the technical term
>>  for space suit is Extra-vehicular Mobile Unit (EMU).  It is really
>>  a self contained mini-spacecraft with critical life-support,
>> communications, and informatics. These map closely to ITS critical
>>  controls, on-board and wide area communications and entertainment
>>  systems.
>>
>>
>> -- Will Ivancic
>>
>>> From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]> Date: Tue,
>>> 25 Jun 2013 03:19:20 -0500 To: Alexandru Petrescu
>>> <[email-masked]> Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
>>> Could I know what was the respond, or if there is a reference I
>>> can collect it? I want full respond not only summary? Sometimes I
>>> think we should close this WG if the IESG is not allowing it to
>>> continue :-(
>>>
>>> AB
>>

---

From: "Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 08:49:53 -0500

I would say 1 and 2 in that order.

For the foreseeable  future, my participation will have to be remote.  The
US Government has greatly restricted travel for political reasons following
the GSA and IRS travel issues that have been in the news in the States.

-- Will

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:59:36 +0200

Hi Eliot,

Thank you for your message which I got to understand more details of
the not-approval reasons,

my comments/questions below,

> the work is unimportant.  My impression is otherwise, but it's not *yet*

I agree that Alex has done a great job. I and many thought that the
work was ready, and I want to defend my position if you allow me to.

> The BoF  proposed to tackle three rather distinct issues:

Why you see them as distinct? they are related to transport networks
within the Internet system domains.

> in the ATOCA working group, and we don't yet understand the overlap.

Why you relate it to emergency only, but the overlap can be better
understood when the both groups work in parallel? Why we choose the
methodology of stop this group until we understand?

>  In
> in IEEE 802.11 or by us is also not clear.

IMHO, no one can say to the Internet-community what is SHOULD be done
and what SHOULD not be done, but we can say to the community *you may
have a request from another organisation would you like to accept it
or not*. This list involves the Internet-Community seeking WG
acceptance. IMHO, any work that involves IPv6 SHOULD be addresses by
the Internet-community in IETF not in IEEE802, and any work that
involves internet-vehicle-communications is better in ITS.

>  In the case of v2v

Existing protocols are not application specific, they still are very
general, the ITS is more with a clear application. I think our
proposal was clear about that.

> list might prove convincing.

I realy don't care much of what other OSDs are doing but think that
they are doing a better job than IETF in this ITS area/market. The
manufactures will adopt work when groups become officialy accepted not
before I think. Does IETF wait for manufactures to be succesful or
does the community requirement drive more?

> And then there is the fact that the IETF is limited in the number of

IMHO, limitation never can be an excuse for not approvals, the IETF
can approve with limits due to thoes limitations.

>
> This space is both interesting and important.

I agree,

>  If we can get to a point
> be formed.

Thanks that is encouraging for progress,

>  Vancouver offers an additional opportunity for a formal

I have no objection,

> I will be available for any and all of these discussions.

Thanks

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:08:10 +0200

> IESG approval of a working group.

I don't want also Europe only solution, but the IETF have to
understand the needs of the Internet community all over the world, we
should not wait. We SHOULD act before others will do a better job and
we are still waiting. IESG approval decision seems to FOLLOW the
REQUEST of manufactures/industry, but they don't say which industry or
which manufacture. My focus on Europe is because I FOLLOW the request
of community+industry+region, not only industry/manufacture.

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:11:35 +0200

Hi Will,

You need to tell us what you mean, or give an example of a better
charter. I don't think you can just say we need more specific without
telling your input. there was an input charter that the participants
in the list accepted and now it was not approved, so what is your
suggestion, please provide with edits to the charter, or some
information. Thanking you,

AB

On 6/25/13, Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0) <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> indicating

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:19:28 +0200

Hi Alex,

I choose to delete 1, and leave 2 and 3 (we may discuss more on these
two). However, trying to make what is most important to ITS.

AB