Subject: [ipwave] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-23.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2021 20:11:27 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG of the IETF.

        Title           : IPv6 Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE): Problem Statement and Use Cases
        Author          : Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong (editor)
	Filename        : draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-23.txt
	Pages           : 49
	Date            : 2021-09-02

Abstract:
   This document discusses the problem statement and use cases of
   IPv6-based vehicular networking for Intelligent Transportation
   Systems (ITS).  The main scenarios of vehicular communications are
   vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and
   vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications.  First, this document
   explains use cases using V2V, V2I, and V2X networking.  Next, for
   IPv6-based vehicular networks, it makes a gap analysis of current
   IPv6 protocols (e.g., IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, Mobility Management,
   and Security & Privacy), and then enumerates requirements for the
   extensions of those IPv6 protocols for IPv6-based vehicular
   networking.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking/

There is also an htmlized version available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-23

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-23

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 10:53:56 +0200

Thanks for this new version of the draft.

At ISO/TC 204 there is a need for 'Localized point to point IPv6 
communications over IEEE Std 802.11'.  This need was also communicated 
to the IAB.

If I understand it correctly, this is something about how mobile 
entities (vehicles of all sorts) interact with each other in their 
immediate vicinity, in a one-to-one paradigm.  It might be something 
very simple, if I understand it correctly.  It might be a communication 
between two cars, via an AP, or without the presence of an AP (Acces 
Point, via a MAC kind of repeating). It might the communication between 
a vehicle and the AP itself (not between a vehicle and another vehicle).

Alex

Le 03/09/2021 à 05:11, [email-masked] a écrit :
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2021 00:42:32 +0200

Hi Paul,

In terminology section: please add
definition for: IPWave-Link, IPWAVE-node (capable of networking with all
IPWAVE-nodes), V-node (Vehicle IPWAVE-node with mobility).
The use case section needs to mention the possible ipwave-link protocols,
as IEEE802.11 , IEEE802.15.4 with 6lowpan, 802.11ad, VLC (Visible
Light Communications),
IrDA, LTE-D, LP-WAN (mentioned in WG charter) and other possible
used-standards if available. If we have then a routing protocol it should
work over those network links, or as daft mentioned cases for protocols
used in the section of routing. Also the draft needs to mention the issue
of mobility is not seriously similar to MANET use cases (only V2V links can
be similar), because the network nodes in IPWAVE are moving within at least
one connectivity coverage or to say that any V-node MUST have at least one
connect link as V2I per.
In MANET or in LLN there are possibilities of totally disconnected at any
time and for a period of time.

In abstract it mentioned the problem statement and use cases. I think they
are the same thing, but it is used in the draft differently, however, I
think the problem statement is like a Vehicle network challenges section.
This challenging section can focus on architecture, standards, protocols,
but should not be mentioning network-layers only if solved in the network
architecture section.

The VANET definition, in terminology, I think should be deleted, because
not all V2V MUST be VANET, we need to make V2V networking definition  may
have possibility  ad hoc or infrastructure modes as known in ieee802.11
standard and others.

Best Regards
AB

On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 5:12 AM <[email-masked]> wrote:

>         Title           : IPv6 Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments
> (IPWAVE): Problem Statement and Use Cases
> its mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>