Subject: [MEXT] Personal Mobile router reqs

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:39:49 +0100

Hi all,

During the last MEXT meeting a candidate draft for our chartered item  
on personal router requirement was presented. We wanted to ask if  
this should be accepted as a WG item, but nobody has read it.

So we ask people to read the draft and provide review and comments,  
in particular about accepting this work on the WG.

The draft can be found at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft- 
ng-nemo-ce-req-01.txt

Thanks, marcelo

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

---

From: "Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RCN0)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 07:10:43 -0600

I read the draft.  It fits in with the car-to-car and aeronautics
requirements drafts.  I believe the idea was to have independent
requirement drafts from each group before moving ahead with any route
optimization to make sure we, mext, understand the issues of each group
and can hopefully develop the technology that is usable by all.  That is
certainly my desire - a common solution.

Also, the consumer electronics requirements have been written in the
same overall format at the aeronautics requirements draft -
requirement/rational.  Thus, if we wish to combine all the requirements
into one draft at a later date, that should be relatively easy.

Finally, we will be turning the aeronautics requirements draft from a
nemo draft to a mext draft.  I expect little to change other than that.

I have been polling the aeronautics industry on whether or not there is
strong desire (not requirement) for MR-to-MR route optimization.  So far
I am not convinced there is such desire.  Many of us feel MR-to-MR route
optimization would be more like a manet function (manemo) and a function
that is far into the future for aeronautics due to regulatory and other
issues.

/Will

> -----Original Message-----
> From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 7:40 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [MEXT] Personal Mobile router reqs
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> During the last MEXT meeting a candidate draft for our 
> chartered item on personal router requirement was presented. 
> We wanted to ask if this should be accepted as a WG item, but 
> nobody has read it.
> 
> So we ask people to read the draft and provide review and 
> comments, in particular about accepting this work on the WG.
>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:22:25 +0100

Hi,

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RCN0) 
> [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Gesendet: Montag, 10. Dezember 2007 14:11
> An: marcelo bagnulo braun; [email-masked]
> Betreff: RE: [MEXT] Personal Mobile router reqs
[...]
> I have been polling the aeronautics industry on whether or not there 
> is strong desire (not requirement) for MR-to-MR route optimization.  
> So far I am not convinced there is such desire.  Many of us feel 
> MR-to-MR route optimization would be more like a manet function 
> (manemo) and a function that is far into the future for aeronautics 
> due to regulatory and other issues.
We have to separate between safety related and non-safety related communication.
Safety-related (like Air Traffic Control) air2air/MR-to-MR communication basically only consists of broadcast messages on the _link_ layer. Doing this as multi-hop communication would be very futuristic. Hence there is no nesting issue wrt NEMO. For the foreseeable future this is probably going to stay as it is...

However, for passenger communication (non-safety related) MR-to-MR communication becomes important and would therefore require respective optimization(s).
Yet, as already pointed out, one will want to use a MANET protocol between the aircraft which is very closely related to manemo.

The question is whether the nesting problem is supposed to be solved either within this WG or on manemo, or perhaps in both (resulting in two solutions)?

Christian

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:40:01 +0100

Hi William,

thanks for the feedback,

> nemo draft to a mext draft.  I expect little to change other than  

please do that

> that is far into the future for aeronautics due to regulatory and  

that would certainly be interesting to know, so let us know of the  
feedback you get

regards, marcelo

---

From: "Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RCN0)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:40:43 -0600

Christian,

> We have to separate between safety related and non-safety 

Agreed.

> Safety-related (like Air Traffic Control) air2air/MR-to-MR 
> communication basically only consists of broadcast messages 
> on the _link_ layer. Doing this as multi-hop communication 
> would be very futuristic. Hence there is no nesting issue wrt 
> NEMO. For the foreseeable future this is probably going to 
> stay as it is...

Agreed

> 
> However, for passenger communication (non-safety related) 
> MR-to-MR communication becomes important and would therefore 
> require respective optimization(s).

I see this "desire" as falling into the "Consumer Electronics" category
more so than aeronautics.

If one is thinking that the passenger services would be over a satellite
link, the MR-to-MR route optimization would certainly be nice.  However,
if the consumer is a business passenger and they have to tie back into
the corporate network via VPNs, all route optimizations may be wasted as
the security mechanisms may force an unoptimized route.

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:10:33 +0100

Hi all,

	I also read the draft and provided some feedback while in Vancouver. My
main concerns are related with the fact that the requirements are very
general, and may apply to many other scenarios. IMHO, requirements'
document should be more concrete, especially concerning issues of
security. Currently, it might seem that the requirements from the
aeronautics and consumer industries are the same, and I still don't see
that so clear (I would think twice before taking a plane that has the
same security considerations for their communications that my PSP ;->).

	Regards,

	Carlos

-- 
¡ASÓCIATE! Gratis para estudiantes  http://www.telematica.ws
 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
 GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  WEEDEV 2008: 1st Workshop on Experimental Evaluation and
        Deployment Experiences on Vehicular networks
                  http://www.weedev.org/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:45:54 +0800

Hello,

A result of doing the comparison between the requirements is that more
specific requirements will be added to the CE draft.  I will try to
update it after New Year.  So we now have two choices: 

(1) consider it accepting it as the WG draft after I published -02
(somewhere in Jan); or

(2) accepting it now so that I can publish it a draft-ietf-mext-...-00,
meeting the Feb '08 milestone.

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:13:37 +0100

Hi Chan-Wah,

We will decide this based on the feedback we receive on the ml. It is  
hard to accept a draft as wg item if very few people have read it.

Regards, marcelo

---

From: "Stuart W. Card" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:40:33 -0500

At 08:10 AM 12/10/2007, Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RCN0) wrote:
>...
>issues...

In the Airborne Networking efforts within the U.S. Air Force,
the ability for a user aboard one aircraft to communicate with
a user aboard a second aircraft, when those 2 aircraft have a
direct wireless link between them, regardless of whether one
or both aircraft currently have links with the ground infrastructure
(and not using those links even if both are present, assuming
the direct aircraft to aircraft link has better QoS or is otherwise
preferred per policy over the air to ground to air route), is a
requirement. Of course, this does not make it a requirement
for the IETF generally nor for MEXT specifically; I just wanted
you all to know what the USAF is doing, and that we have
been trying to stick close to IETF standards efforts.

Stuart W. Card, Chief Scientist & VP, Critical Technologies Inc.
* Creativity * Diversity * Expertise * Flexibility * Integrity *
Suite 400 Technology Center, 4th Floor 1001 Broad St, Utica NY 13501
315-793-0248 x141 FAX -9710 <[email-masked]> www.critical.com

---

From: "Stuart W. Card" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:46:11 -0500

At 02:40 PM 12/10/2007, Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RCN0) wrote:
>the security mechanisms may force an unoptimized route...

In our Air Force work, communications may be over direct air-to-air
Line Of Sight (LOS) links (UHF, VHF), direct air-to-air Beyond LOS
links (HF), direct air-to-air LOS Extension links (various types of
SATCOM), or multi-hop air-to-ground-to air routes. Indeed, often
security policy may force quadrangle routing, but not always, and
the penalty may not be just poor performance, but service outage.

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:04:18 +0100

Hi Stuart:

Are you aware of the tentative work around MANEMO?

Right now this has not turned into a working group (yet?), but there were succcesful preBOFs in Prague.

The overall idea is to enable MANET and NEMO coordination so that they benefit from one another.

Pascal

>From: Stuart W. Card [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: vendredi 14 décembre 2007 23:41
>To: Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RCN0); marcelo bagnulo braun; 
>[email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: aero MR-MR RO (was: [MEXT] Personal Mobile router reqs)
>
>>strong desire (not requirement) for MR-to-MR route optimization.  So 
>>far I am not convinced there is such desire.  Many of us feel 
>MR-to-MR 
>>route optimization would be more like a manet function (manemo) and a 
>>function that is far into the future for aeronautics due to 
>regulatory 
>>and other issues...
>
>or both aircraft currently have links with the ground 
>infrastructure (and not using those links even if both are 
>present, assuming the direct aircraft to aircraft link has 
>better QoS or is otherwise preferred per policy over the air 
>to ground to air route), is a requirement. Of course, this 
>does not make it a requirement for the IETF generally nor for 
>MEXT specifically; I just wanted you all to know what the USAF 
>is doing, and that we have been trying to stick close to IETF 
>standards efforts.
>
>
>* Creativity * Diversity * Expertise * Flexibility * Integrity 
>* Suite 400 Technology Center, 4th Floor 1001 Broad St, Utica NY 13501

---

From: "Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RCN0)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:36:13 -0600

Stuart,

When I indicated I polled the aeronautics industry, I should have
indicated that it was the "civil" aviation groups I was concentrating
on.  Of course the military operates under some "civil" aviation
requirements and during military operations they operate under other
rules as well.

It may also be important to note that different interfaces on a route
can be configure to run different routing or mobile-ip base protocols or
both.

I guess it may also be important to note that future radios may allow
the interface to effectively be attached to different virtual radio
(i.e. the radio is reconfigurable or cognitive and therefore can
communicate with a variety of other radio system.)  But this is a ways
off and is architecture and security as much as routing.

/will

> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 5:41 PM
> >strong desire (not requirement) for MR-to-MR route optimization.
......
> the ability for a user aboard one aircraft to communicate 
> with a user aboard a second aircraft, when those 2 aircraft 
> have a direct wireless link between them, regardless of 
> whether one or both aircraft currently have links with the 
> ground infrastructure (and not using those links even if both 
> are present, assuming the direct aircraft to aircraft link 
> has better QoS or is otherwise preferred per policy over the 
> air to ground to air route), is a requirement. Of course, 
> this does not make it a requirement for the IETF generally 
> nor for MEXT specifically; ......