Subject: [geonet/its] differences between geonet and other IETF WGs

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:28:59 +0000

Hi all,

Below I am shortly describing what are the main differences between Geonet and ECRIT, GEOPRIV and LISP.

If you have any comments for modifications/additions please let us know!

The GEOPRIV WG focusses on protocols that allow applications to represent location/geography objects and to allow users to express
policies on how these representations are exposed and used. Moreover, the GEOPRIV WG analyses the authorization, integrity, and privacy requirements that
must be met when these representations of location/geography are created, stored, and used. 
Geonet mainly focusses on how IP routing and addressing uses such location/geography representations.

The LISP WG mainly focusses mainly on network-layer-based protocol solutions that enable the separation of routing locators (where you are attached to the 
network) and identifiers (who you are) in one number space.
Geonet mainly focusses on how IP routing and addressing uses geography parameters, like geographical coordinates to disseminate packets sent by a sender located anywhere in the Internet to nodes that are located in the area specified by these geography parameters.

The ECRIT WG mainly focusses mainly on how location data and call routing information  are used to enable communication between a user and a relevant emergency response center. In particular, the ECRIT WG has specified protocols to map emergency services identifiers and geodetic or civic location information to service contact URIs.
Geonet mainly focusses on how IP routing and addressing uses geodetic or civic location information to disseminate packets sent by a sender located anywhere in the Internet to nodes that are located in the area specified by this geodetic or civic location information.

Best regards,
Georgios

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karagiannis, G. (EWI)
> Sent: woensdag 15 januari 2014 13:49
> To: 'Alexandru Petrescu'; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [geonet/its] new descriptions of Geonet problem, challenges,
> requirements, assumptions + request for volunteers
> 
> Hi Alex,
> 
> Okay, your proposed txt is fine for me!
> 
> Best regards,
> Georgios
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: its [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alexandru
> > Petrescu
> > Sent: woensdag 15 januari 2014 13:47
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [geonet/its] new descriptions of Geonet problem,
> > challenges, requirements, assumptions + request for volunteers
> >
> > Le 15/01/2014 09:02, [email-masked] a écrit :
> > > Hi Rex,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the comment, however, I have a question regarding your
> > > proposed text for the stability requirement:
> > >
> > >> s/scaleable/stable Reason.  Spectrum is an inelastic resource so
> > >> you can't just up comms capacity when sources increase.  What is
> > >> important is determinism vs stochasticism.  Because deterministic
> > >> systems are stable under overload. At layer 2 we see this in the
> > >> different MACs.  CSMA (as in WiFi) is what we used to call 'free net'
> > >> and crashes under overload.  TDMA MACs like that in 802.16 are what
> > >> we used to call 'directed net' and are stable (and near-
> > >> deterministic).
> > >
> > > How does this requirement fits to the work that IETF needs to do?
> > > Please provide the requirement that the Geonet solution will need to
> > > support?
> >
> > Sorry for interfering in your exchange, but I believe his remark - to
> > which I agree separately - is about this GeoNet requirement:
> >
> > > The specified mechanisms and protocol solutions:
> > [...]
> > > o) SHOULD be able to be scalable and maintain its performance to
> > > acceptable levels even it is applied to: (1) global coverage with
> > > small target/destination geographic areas, (2) large traffic volumes
> > > (large flows), (3) large number of active sources
> >
> > To accommodate his remark maybe we could rather say:
> >
> > > SHOULD be able to scale, leverage on stable and deterministic
> > > underlayers when available, and maintain its performance to
> > > acceptable levels even if it is applied to: (1) global coverage with
> > > small target/destination geographic areas, (2) large traffic volumes
> > > (large flows), (3) large number of active sources
> >
> > Would this read better?
> >
> > Alex
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Best regards, Georgios
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message----- From: Rex Buddenberg
> > >> [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent: dinsdag 14 januari 2014 20:28
> > >> To: Karagiannis, G. (EWI) Cc: [email-masked];
> > >> [email-masked] Subject: Re: [geonet/its] new
> > >> descriptions of Geonet problem, challenges, requirements,
> > >> assumptions
> > >> + request for volunteers
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 12:22 +0000, [email-masked] wrote:
> > >>> o) SHOULD be able to be scalable and maintain its performance to
> > >>> acceptable levels even it is applied to: (1) global coverage with
> > >>> small target/destination geographic areas, (2) large traffic
> > >>> volumes (large flows), (3) large number of active sources
> > >>
> > >> s/scaleable/stable
> > >>
> > >> Reason.  Spectrum is an inelastic resource so you can't just up
> > >> comms capacity when sources increase.  What is important is
> > >> determinism vs stochasticism.  Because deterministic systems are
> > >> stable under overload. At layer 2 we see this in the different
> > >> MACs.  CSMA (as in
> > >> WiFi) is what we used to call 'free net' and crashes under overload.
> > >> TDMA MACs like that in 802.16 are what we  used to call 'directed
> > >> net' and are stable (and near- deterministic).
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________ its mailing
> list
> > > [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > its mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its