From jonghyouk@gmail.com Wed Aug 1 09:36:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAB3511E8087 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:36:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.765 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.765 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.833, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5DFW02WcMhf5 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gh0-f172.google.com (mail-gh0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59B8721F888C for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so8076131ghb.31 for ; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:36:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=aPj497saPOqMLeeb1JGvUWFZ2w2097Zv9SivYb41Hts=; b=o6nfT4pIJWkWgW/FkzbrIGoe/pTQK/YxtnqPdOpiXOFczbiteLCFr4GgCqIsmVKBMK f/znsw6+3MOa0HSIjXgZdn/muIYvnbNQQabGfLB+YCGROfNqTlJVTMwI4XxIQKp4yG0R vIiBapIRvGBxC7XqWZWJPR15JjhsitM5c0rgMsoxYDWsoaJhkx3TvIq4sCSSssaNIhcn +8EPpopD4Zstj43Loi6/ljFNbfd2mMxJAvr2vjSyEOzFs/93oPe6SNreDVMmcKVg9hx+ OomuPuHjlZ5UWlaX6o+jT3tVfzVL6cpERAGKdEPUHqdCFmkr59FzbaNcCGH4X0qOT75a G3xQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.207.104 with SMTP id lv8mr6071458igc.41.1343838974425; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:36:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.36.42 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:36:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <501886B9.4090805@gmail.com> References: <501886B9.4090805@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 18:36:14 +0200 Message-ID: From: Jong-Hyouk Lee To: Alexandru Petrescu Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9340fbdb4b97604c636e462 Cc: "its@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [its] minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 2012, IETF 84, Vancouver X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Intelligent Transportation Systems discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:36:16 -0000 --14dae9340fbdb4b97604c636e462 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Dear all, I was not there, but give some comments. Kindly see inline: On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 3:30 AM, Alexandru Petrescu < alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear participants to ITS, > > Please find below minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 2012, IETF 84, > Vancouver. > > If modifications are needed then please ask. > > Yours, > > Alex > > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**------ > Minutes of the meeting > bar BoF > ITS IP for Intelligent Transportation Systems > July 30th, 2012 > IETF84 Vancouver, room Plaza C, Hotel Hyatt > 19h30-20h30 > slides at http://web.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~**ryuji/its.html > email list: its@ietf.org and https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/its > Contact organizers: > Alexandru Petrescu, alexandru.petresuc@gmail.com > Georgios Karagiannis, g.karagiannis@utwente.nl > > On average 10 people were present; list available upon request. > > 2 presented. > > Note that during this meeting Georgios presented use cases on Traffic > efficiency and Infotainment vehicular applications. However, the use > cases on Traffic safety applications are presented during the previous > meeting, see: > > http://imara.inria.fr/ietf-its > > Comment received: from RtiV: it is important to identify how to get > information from the current ITS protocol solutions that are developed > in the ETSI ITS group, as well as in ISO CALM; the main comment is > that what we do in IETF should be at least somehow aligned with what > the other SDOs (ETSI ITS and ISCO CALM TC 204) are doing. Currently, > at least one EU FP7 project (e.g., Drive C2X) is implementing and > verifying the protocol stacks that are specified in ISO CALM TC 204 > and ETSI ITS; it would be important to wait to receive the results of > this verification. This might lead to signifficant work that could be > in the IETF in the area of ITS to solve identified problems. > Rather than Drive C2X, the EU FP7 project, ITSSv6, is more relevant to us as we're Internet Protocol guys: http://project.inria.fr/itssv6/ As shown at the ITSSv6 project site, the project aims at developing the IPv6 lTS station stack supporting at least 802.11p and 2G/3G media types and different ITS types (roadside, vehicle, central). Of course the IPv6 ITS station stack confirms the existing standards from ETSI, ISO, and IETF. For instance, for IP mobility, NEMO is used. The project's result is being provided already to other ITS related to projects. The ETSI and ISO are relying on the IETF especially for IP related technologies (of course including IP mobility). > > RtiV: the traffic safety application will probably not be part of the > solution space that could be worked out in ITS at IETF, since > currently this type of applications are not supported at IP networking > layer. > True. > > JS: mention that it would not help the progress if we only focus on > the items we presented, specifically some of the items could already > be done at IETF in different WGs (netext, 6man, dmm, manet). > IPv6-over-foo could be done in 6man; what is special to vehicular > networks that is not normally done in other groups? Recommend to look > at the scenarios first, and then define the technologies that could be > used in the scenarios and afterwards how are they referring to > networking items/issues; based on this approach one could identify the > scenarios, technologies and networking items/issues and then write the > requirements that are accompanying these scenarios; These requirements > will then be representing/relating to the identified networked items. > Agree. > > About addressing within one vehicle: > - why dont you use ULAs? > - ULAs are good, and they need some seed to generate uniqueness and > also it would be good for some vehicular applications to revert back > from an address into an identifier of vehicle, and need of prefix. > > About IPv6 over 802.11p: mention that IEEE 802.11p, recommends the use > of IEEE 802.11e for QoS differentiation, that can be used for message > differentiation, e.g., differentiate between emergency and > non-emergency messages. > > About PMIP-NEMO: > - why do you want to do this, because already NETEXT does so. > - yes but do they do V2V2I as well? (current netext work seems > pertinent to V2I exclusively). > If the purpose of developing PMIP-NEMO is only for that (i.e., supporting V2V2I), I'm not sure whether it is enough. V2V communication between moving vehicles (implementing Network Mobility) is needed even for NEMO. > > Next steps: > - try to first get more support from the automotive industry and the > SDOs, like ETSI ITS. > - try to acquire results from the verification/validation process of > the implemented ISO CALM TC 204 and ETSI ITS protocol stacks from > the Drive C2X FP7 project. > - identify scenarios, technologies and networking items that are > aligned with the other SDOs, like ETSI ITS > - Based on these scenarios, technologies and networking items, derive > the problem statement, requirements and goals that will need to be > worked out by the ITS WG. > Do not forget "security and location privacy" when we reach to the steps for the problem statement, requirements, and gap analysis. Cheers. > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > ______________________________**_________________ > its mailing list > its@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/its > -- RSM Department, TELECOM Bretagne, France Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random #email: jonghyouk (at) gmail (dot) com #webpage: http://sites.google.com/site/hurryon/ --14dae9340fbdb4b97604c636e462 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all,

I was not there, but give some comments. Kindl= y see inline:

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 3:30= AM, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear participants to ITS,

Please find below minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 2012, IETF 84, Vancouve= r.

If modifications are needed then please ask.

Yours,

Alex


-------------------------------------------------------------= -----
Minutes of the meeting
bar BoF
ITS IP for Intelligent Transportation Systems
July 30th, 2012
IETF84 Vancouver, room Plaza C, Hotel Hyatt
19h30-20h30
slides at http://web.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~ryuji/its.html
email list: its@ietf.org<= /a> and https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
Contact organizers:
Alexandru Petrescu, alexandru.petresuc@gmail.com
Georgios Karagiannis, g.karagiannis@utwente.nl

On average 10 people were present; list available upon request.

2 presented.

Note that during this meeting Georgios presented use cases on Traffic
efficiency and Infotainment vehicular applications. However, the use
cases on Traffic safety applications are presented during the previous
meeting, see:

http://imara.i= nria.fr/ietf-its

Comment received: from RtiV: it is important to identify how to get
information from the current ITS protocol solutions that are developed
in the ETSI ITS group, as well as in ISO CALM; the main comment is
that what we do in IETF should be at least somehow aligned with what
the other SDOs (ETSI ITS and ISCO CALM TC 204) are doing. =C2=A0Currently,<= br> at least one EU FP7 project (e.g., Drive C2X) is implementing and
verifying the protocol stacks that are specified in ISO CALM TC 204
and ETSI ITS; it would be important to wait to receive the results of
this verification. =C2=A0This might lead to signifficant work that could be=
in the IETF in the area of ITS to solve identified problems.

Rather than Drive C2X, the EU FP7 project, ITSSv6, is= more relevant to us as we're Internet Protocol guys: http://project.inria.fr/itssv6/ As shown at = the ITSSv6 project site, the project aims at developing the=C2=A0IPv6 lTS s= tation stack supporting=C2=A0at least 802.11p and 2G/3G media types and dif= ferent ITS types=C2=A0(roadside, vehicle, central). Of course the IPv6 ITS = station stack confirms the existing standards from ETSI, ISO, and IETF. For= instance, for IP mobility, NEMO is used. The project's result is being= provided already to other ITS related to projects.

The ETSI and ISO are relying on the IETF especially for= IP related technologies (of course including IP mobility).
=C2= =A0

RtiV: the traffic safety application will probably not be part of the
solution space that could be worked out in ITS at IETF, since
currently this type of applications are not supported at IP networking
layer.

True.
=C2=A0

JS: mention that it would not help the progress if we only focus on
the items we presented, specifically some of the items could already
be done at IETF in different WGs (netext, 6man, dmm, manet).
IPv6-over-foo could be done in 6man; what is special to vehicular
networks that is not normally done in other groups? =C2=A0Recommend to look=
at the scenarios first, and then define the technologies that could be
used in the scenarios and afterwards how are they referring to
networking items/issues; based on this approach one could identify the
scenarios, technologies and networking items/issues and then write the
requirements that are accompanying these scenarios; These requirements
will then be representing/relating to the identified networked items.

Agree.
=C2=A0

About addressing within one vehicle:
- why dont you use ULAs?
- ULAs are good, and they need some seed to generate uniqueness and
also it would be good for some vehicular applications to revert back
from an address into an identifier of vehicle, and need of prefix.

About IPv6 over 802.11p: mention that IEEE 802.11p, recommends the use
of IEEE 802.11e for QoS differentiation, that can be used for message
differentiation, e.g., differentiate between emergency and
non-emergency messages.

About PMIP-NEMO:
- why do you want to do this, because already NETEXT does so.
- yes but do they do V2V2I as well? (current netext work seems
=C2=A0 pertinent to V2I exclusively).

I= f the purpose of developing PMIP-NEMO is only for that (i.e., supporting V2= V2I), I'm not sure whether it is enough. V2V communication between movi= ng vehicles (implementing Network Mobility) is needed even for NEMO.=C2=A0<= /div>
=C2=A0

Next steps:
- try to first get more support from the automotive industry and the
=C2=A0 SDOs, like ETSI ITS.
- try to acquire results from the verification/validation process of
=C2=A0 the implemented ISO CALM TC 204 and ETSI ITS protocol stacks from =C2=A0 the Drive C2X FP7 project.
- identify scenarios, technologies and networking items that are
=C2=A0 aligned with the other SDOs, like ETSI ITS
- Based on these scenarios, technologies and networking items, derive
=C2=A0 the problem statement, requirements and goals that will need to be =C2=A0 worked out by the ITS WG.

Do not= forget "security and location privacy" when we reach to the step= s for the problem statement, requirements, and gap analysis.

Cheers.
=C2=A0
-------------------------------------------------------------= --------
_______________________________________________
its mailing list
its@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its



--
RSM Dep= artment, TELECOM Bretagne, France
Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewher= e between /dev/null and /dev/random

#email:=C2=A0j= onghyouk (at) gmail (dot) com

--14dae9340fbdb4b97604c636e462-- From thierry.ernst@inria.fr Wed Aug 1 09:37:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8F4711E8087 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:37:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J8XQngToQ6Mq for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:37:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC74E11E80E3 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:37:06 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,695,1336341600"; d="vcf'?scan'208";a="168817431" Received: from dhcp-rocq-181.inria.fr ([128.93.62.181]) by mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA; 01 Aug 2012 18:37:05 +0200 Message-ID: <50195B30.5020700@inria.fr> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 18:37:04 +0200 From: Thierry Ernst Organization: INRIA User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: its@ietf.org References: <501886B9.4090805@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <501886B9.4090805@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------070803030700040601050803" Subject: Re: [its] minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 2012, IETF 84, Vancouver X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Intelligent Transportation Systems discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:37:08 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070803030700040601050803 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, I have put the slides of the presentation on the same page as the one used for meeting in Paris, see http://imara.inria.fr/ietf-its#meeting_at_ietf83_-_paris Comment to the minutes: - since ISO TC204 WG16 (CALM group) and the ISO/ETSI ITS station reference architecture is mentioned (specification ISO 2127), I'm happy to announce you that the final version of the ISO standard on IPv6 networking for ITS (ISO 21210) has just been published last month: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=46549. There are other IPv6-related standards under preparation at ISO and they are addressing some if not most of the issues discussed at the IETF meeting. - the European project DriveC2X is not implementing nor testing anything about IPv6. However, other ITS-related projects do: FOTsis, ITSSv6, SCORE@F. Results are not available yet, but there will be demonstrations performed at the next ITS World Congress. - while it is true that IPv6 is not considered by ISO/ETSI for time-critical road safety application, there are other road safety applications without strong time constraints that could benefit from IPv6. Some may even require IPv6, e.g. if routing through the Internet is required. The time critical safety applications that are considered at ETSI are indeed typical V2V applications (or V2R2V is the roadside is used as a forwarder) where Internet connectivity is not required. - IPv6 is not considered for those time critical applications because IPv6 is mainly criticized for the size of the packet header (by ETSI solutions on GeoNetworking is not any better on this), and for the lack of QoS or Security (this is what they say). - ISO is an organization that is working on architectures, taking into consideration legal and registration aspects for the various use cases. So, ISO knows what the needs and constraints are, thus I would assume any attempt to set up a working group to consider ISO needs first. - indeed, a liaison between ISO and IETF is (tentatively) under setup, but is not progressing fast because of the difference in the nature of the two organizations (ISO is very formal, has strict procedures, and takes decision once every 6 months). Regards, Thierry. On 01/08/12 03:30, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Dear participants to ITS, > > Please find below minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 2012, IETF 84, > Vancouver. > > If modifications are needed then please ask. > > Yours, > > Alex > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Minutes of the meeting > bar BoF > ITS IP for Intelligent Transportation Systems > July 30th, 2012 > IETF84 Vancouver, room Plaza C, Hotel Hyatt > 19h30-20h30 > slides at http://web.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~ryuji/its.html > email list: its@ietf.org and https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its > Contact organizers: > Alexandru Petrescu, alexandru.petresuc@gmail.com > Georgios Karagiannis, g.karagiannis@utwente.nl > > On average 10 people were present; list available upon request. > > 2 presented. > > Note that during this meeting Georgios presented use cases on Traffic > efficiency and Infotainment vehicular applications. However, the use > cases on Traffic safety applications are presented during the previous > meeting, see: > > http://imara.inria.fr/ietf-its > > Comment received: from RtiV: it is important to identify how to get > information from the current ITS protocol solutions that are developed > in the ETSI ITS group, as well as in ISO CALM; the main comment is > that what we do in IETF should be at least somehow aligned with what > the other SDOs (ETSI ITS and ISCO CALM TC 204) are doing. Currently, > at least one EU FP7 project (e.g., Drive C2X) is implementing and > verifying the protocol stacks that are specified in ISO CALM TC 204 > and ETSI ITS; it would be important to wait to receive the results of > this verification. This might lead to signifficant work that could be > in the IETF in the area of ITS to solve identified problems. > > RtiV: the traffic safety application will probably not be part of the > solution space that could be worked out in ITS at IETF, since > currently this type of applications are not supported at IP networking > layer. > > JS: mention that it would not help the progress if we only focus on > the items we presented, specifically some of the items could already > be done at IETF in different WGs (netext, 6man, dmm, manet). > IPv6-over-foo could be done in 6man; what is special to vehicular > networks that is not normally done in other groups? Recommend to look > at the scenarios first, and then define the technologies that could be > used in the scenarios and afterwards how are they referring to > networking items/issues; based on this approach one could identify the > scenarios, technologies and networking items/issues and then write the > requirements that are accompanying these scenarios; These requirements > will then be representing/relating to the identified networked items. > > About addressing within one vehicle: > - why dont you use ULAs? > - ULAs are good, and they need some seed to generate uniqueness and > also it would be good for some vehicular applications to revert back > from an address into an identifier of vehicle, and need of prefix. > > About IPv6 over 802.11p: mention that IEEE 802.11p, recommends the use > of IEEE 802.11e for QoS differentiation, that can be used for message > differentiation, e.g., differentiate between emergency and > non-emergency messages. > > About PMIP-NEMO: > - why do you want to do this, because already NETEXT does so. > - yes but do they do V2V2I as well? (current netext work seems > pertinent to V2I exclusively). > > Next steps: > - try to first get more support from the automotive industry and the > SDOs, like ETSI ITS. > - try to acquire results from the verification/validation process of > the implemented ISO CALM TC 204 and ETSI ITS protocol stacks from > the Drive C2X FP7 project. > - identify scenarios, technologies and networking items that are > aligned with the other SDOs, like ETSI ITS > - Based on these scenarios, technologies and networking items, derive > the problem statement, requirements and goals that will need to be > worked out by the ITS WG. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > its mailing list > its@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its --------------070803030700040601050803 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="thierry_ernst.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="thierry_ernst.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Thierry Ernst n:Ernst;Thierry org:INRIA - Project Team IMARA - LaRA JRU tel;work:+33 1 3963 59 30 tel;fax:+33 1 39 63 54 91 tel;cell:+33 6 76 56 25 96 url:http://www.lara.prd.fr version:2.1 end:vcard --------------070803030700040601050803-- From roland.bless@kit.edu Wed Aug 1 10:23:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ED6611E839E for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 10:23:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OQcVnTq1ZTgB for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 10:23:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de [141.3.10.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DE6511E8399 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 10:23:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i72vorta.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.71.26] helo=vorta.tm.kit.edu) by iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp port 25 id 1Swcdr-0006RC-Vk for ; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:23:33 +0200 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorta.tm.kit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F37AA8083C for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 19:23:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5019660C.9020606@kit.edu> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:23:24 +0200 From: Roland Bless Organization: Institute of Telematics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060111 Thunderbird/1.5 Mnenhy/0.7.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: its@ietf.org References: <501886B9.4090805@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <501886B9.4090805@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) X-ATIS-AV: Kaspersky (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) X-ATIS-Timestamp: iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de 1343841813.449662000 Subject: Re: [its] minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 2012, IETF 84, Vancouver X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Intelligent Transportation Systems discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 17:23:35 -0000 Hi, On 01.08.2012 03:30, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Please find below minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 2012, IETF 84, > Vancouver. Thanks for the minutes. > About addressing within one vehicle: > - why dont you use ULAs? > - ULAs are good, and they need some seed to generate uniqueness and > also it would be good for some vehicular applications to revert back > from an address into an identifier of vehicle, and need of prefix. ULAs are a nice match for the use within the internal on-board network, since internal network communications should be independent of any external addressing assignment scheme. External addresses for communication with the environment (e.g., roadside units, other cars, diagnosis units, and also the Internet) must be accepted as they come and go. Therefore, usually you'll need some kind of security gateway that performs the translation between the ULAs and the external addresses if required (another alternative is to multi-home some of the internal devices, but this may be not so secure anymore...) Last meeting I presented a potential approach how to generate ULAs from a VIN (vehicle identification number). While using the VIN as input (or seed) for the address generation algorithm has some advantages, I don't think that it's a good idea to extract the VIN back out of the address since it's mixing network address and ID semantics. Regards, Roland From karagian@cs.utwente.nl Wed Aug 1 10:34:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7314C11E8265 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 10:34:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.163 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.163 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.341, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f1iA1B1XOHZR for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 10:34:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXEDGE02.ad.utwente.nl (exedge02.ad.utwente.nl [130.89.5.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DF8711E825D for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 10:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXHUB02.ad.utwente.nl (130.89.4.229) by EXEDGE02.ad.utwente.nl (130.89.5.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 19:33:58 +0200 Received: from EXMBX04.ad.utwente.nl ([169.254.4.41]) by EXHUB02.ad.utwente.nl ([130.89.4.229]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 19:33:58 +0200 From: To: , Thread-Topic: [its] minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 2012, IETF 84, Vancouver Thread-Index: AQHNb4VHP/S1qOwHdUiY1+ufdA3bupdFBzIAgAAvWQs= Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 17:33:57 +0000 Message-ID: References: <501886B9.4090805@gmail.com>,<50195B30.5020700@inria.fr> In-Reply-To: <50195B30.5020700@inria.fr> Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US Content-Language: nl-NL X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [64.114.255.126] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [its] minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 2012, IETF 84, Vancouver X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Intelligent Transportation Systems discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 17:34:02 -0000 Hi Thierry, Thanks very much for the comments! Below I am providing questions to some of your comments/statements: > However, other ITS-related projects do: FOTsis, ITSSv6, SCORE@F. Results = are not available yet, but=20 > there will be demonstrations performed at the next ITS World Congress. Georgios: Is it possible to inform us as soon as these results are availabl= e? > while it is true that IPv6 is not considered by ISO/ETSI for > time-critical road safety application, there are other road safety > applications without strong time constraints that could benefit from > IPv6. Some may even require IPv6, e.g. if routing through the Internet > is required. The time critical safety applications that are considered > at ETSI are indeed typical V2V applications (or V2R2V is the roadside is > used as a forwarder) where Internet connectivity is not required. Georgios: Can you please list/describe these road safety applications that= could benefit from IPv6? > - indeed, a liaison between ISO and IETF is (tentatively) under setup, > but is not progressing fast because of the difference in the nature of > the two organizations (ISO is very formal, has strict procedures, and > takes decision once every 6 months). Georgios: Great news! When do you expect a decision from ISO on this issue? Best regards, Georgios ________________________________________ Van: its-bounces@ietf.org [its-bounces@ietf.org] namens Thierry Ernst [thie= rry.ernst@inria.fr] Verzonden: woensdag 1 augustus 2012 18:37 Aan: its@ietf.org Onderwerp: Re: [its] minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 2012, IETF 84, Vanco= uver Dear all, I have put the slides of the presentation on the same page as the one used for meeting in Paris, see http://imara.inria.fr/ietf-its#meeting_at_ietf83_-_paris Comment to the minutes: - since ISO TC204 WG16 (CALM group) and the ISO/ETSI ITS station reference architecture is mentioned (specification ISO 2127), I'm happy to announce you that the final version of the ISO standard on IPv6 networking for ITS (ISO 21210) has just been published last month: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=3D46549. There are other IPv6-related standards under preparation at ISO and they are addressing some if not most of the issues discussed at the IETF meeting. - the European project DriveC2X is not implementing nor testing anything about IPv6. However, other ITS-related projects do: FOTsis, ITSSv6, SCORE@F. Results are not available yet, but there will be demonstrations performed at the next ITS World Congress. - while it is true that IPv6 is not considered by ISO/ETSI for time-critical road safety application, there are other road safety applications without strong time constraints that could benefit from IPv6. Some may even require IPv6, e.g. if routing through the Internet is required. The time critical safety applications that are considered at ETSI are indeed typical V2V applications (or V2R2V is the roadside is used as a forwarder) where Internet connectivity is not required. - IPv6 is not considered for those time critical applications because IPv6 is mainly criticized for the size of the packet header (by ETSI solutions on GeoNetworking is not any better on this), and for the lack of QoS or Security (this is what they say). - ISO is an organization that is working on architectures, taking into consideration legal and registration aspects for the various use cases. So, ISO knows what the needs and constraints are, thus I would assume any attempt to set up a working group to consider ISO needs first. - indeed, a liaison between ISO and IETF is (tentatively) under setup, but is not progressing fast because of the difference in the nature of the two organizations (ISO is very formal, has strict procedures, and takes decision once every 6 months). Regards, Thierry. On 01/08/12 03:30, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Dear participants to ITS, > > Please find below minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 2012, IETF 84, > Vancouver. > > If modifications are needed then please ask. > > Yours, > > Alex > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Minutes of the meeting > bar BoF > ITS IP for Intelligent Transportation Systems > July 30th, 2012 > IETF84 Vancouver, room Plaza C, Hotel Hyatt > 19h30-20h30 > slides at http://web.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~ryuji/its.html > email list: its@ietf.org and https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its > Contact organizers: > Alexandru Petrescu, alexandru.petresuc@gmail.com > Georgios Karagiannis, g.karagiannis@utwente.nl > > On average 10 people were present; list available upon request. > > 2 presented. > > Note that during this meeting Georgios presented use cases on Traffic > efficiency and Infotainment vehicular applications. However, the use > cases on Traffic safety applications are presented during the previous > meeting, see: > > http://imara.inria.fr/ietf-its > > Comment received: from RtiV: it is important to identify how to get > information from the current ITS protocol solutions that are developed > in the ETSI ITS group, as well as in ISO CALM; the main comment is > that what we do in IETF should be at least somehow aligned with what > the other SDOs (ETSI ITS and ISCO CALM TC 204) are doing. Currently, > at least one EU FP7 project (e.g., Drive C2X) is implementing and > verifying the protocol stacks that are specified in ISO CALM TC 204 > and ETSI ITS; it would be important to wait to receive the results of > this verification. This might lead to signifficant work that could be > in the IETF in the area of ITS to solve identified problems. > > RtiV: the traffic safety application will probably not be part of the > solution space that could be worked out in ITS at IETF, since > currently this type of applications are not supported at IP networking > layer. > > JS: mention that it would not help the progress if we only focus on > the items we presented, specifically some of the items could already > be done at IETF in different WGs (netext, 6man, dmm, manet). > IPv6-over-foo could be done in 6man; what is special to vehicular > networks that is not normally done in other groups? Recommend to look > at the scenarios first, and then define the technologies that could be > used in the scenarios and afterwards how are they referring to > networking items/issues; based on this approach one could identify the > scenarios, technologies and networking items/issues and then write the > requirements that are accompanying these scenarios; These requirements > will then be representing/relating to the identified networked items. > > About addressing within one vehicle: > - why dont you use ULAs? > - ULAs are good, and they need some seed to generate uniqueness and > also it would be good for some vehicular applications to revert back > from an address into an identifier of vehicle, and need of prefix. > > About IPv6 over 802.11p: mention that IEEE 802.11p, recommends the use > of IEEE 802.11e for QoS differentiation, that can be used for message > differentiation, e.g., differentiate between emergency and > non-emergency messages. > > About PMIP-NEMO: > - why do you want to do this, because already NETEXT does so. > - yes but do they do V2V2I as well? (current netext work seems > pertinent to V2I exclusively). > > Next steps: > - try to first get more support from the automotive industry and the > SDOs, like ETSI ITS. > - try to acquire results from the verification/validation process of > the implemented ISO CALM TC 204 and ETSI ITS protocol stacks from > the Drive C2X FP7 project. > - identify scenarios, technologies and networking items that are > aligned with the other SDOs, like ETSI ITS > - Based on these scenarios, technologies and networking items, derive > the problem statement, requirements and goals that will need to be > worked out by the ITS WG. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > its mailing list > its@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its= From seiljeon@av.it.pt Wed Aug 1 19:30:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0145511E810C for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 19:30:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nZMaqNNenWrC for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 19:30:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av.it.pt (mail.av.it.pt [193.136.92.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A04F11E80EF for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 19:30:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.129.54.42] (account seiljeon@av.it.pt) by av.it.pt (CommuniGate Pro WEBUSER 5.4.2) with HTTP id 65676528; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 03:15:47 +0100 From: "Seil Jeon" To: "Alexandru Petrescu" , X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser v5.4.2 Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 03:15:47 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <501886B9.4090805@gmail.com> References: <501886B9.4090805@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-2022-kr; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "its@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [its] minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 2012, IETF 84, Vancouver X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Intelligent Transportation Systems discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 02:30:52 -0000 Thanks Alex, I think we need to take two tracks; One would be identifying relevant works ITS should contribute through keeping in touch with other SDOs. Second, as I said, extracting the potential items from the vehicular scenarios presented by Georgios. Regarding on that, I would try to find out. Seil On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:30:33 -0700 Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Dear participants to ITS, > > Please find below minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, >2012, IETF 84, Vancouver. > > If modifications are needed then please ask. > > Yours, > > Alex > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Minutes of the meeting > bar BoF > ITS IP for Intelligent Transportation Systems > July 30th, 2012 > IETF84 Vancouver, room Plaza C, Hotel Hyatt > 19h30-20h30 > slides at http://web.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~ryuji/its.html > email list: its@ietf.org and >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its > Contact organizers: > Alexandru Petrescu, alexandru.petresuc@gmail.com > Georgios Karagiannis, g.karagiannis@utwente.nl > > On average 10 people were present; list available upon >request. > > 2 presented. > > Note that during this meeting Georgios presented use >cases on Traffic > efficiency and Infotainment vehicular applications. >However, the use > cases on Traffic safety applications are presented >during the previous > meeting, see: > > http://imara.inria.fr/ietf-its > > Comment received: from RtiV: it is important to identify >how to get > information from the current ITS protocol solutions that >are developed > in the ETSI ITS group, as well as in ISO CALM; the main >comment is > that what we do in IETF should be at least somehow >aligned with what > the other SDOs (ETSI ITS and ISCO CALM TC 204) are >doing. Currently, > at least one EU FP7 project (e.g., Drive C2X) is >implementing and > verifying the protocol stacks that are specified in ISO >CALM TC 204 > and ETSI ITS; it would be important to wait to receive >the results of > this verification. This might lead to signifficant work >that could be > in the IETF in the area of ITS to solve identified >problems. > > RtiV: the traffic safety application will probably not >be part of the > solution space that could be worked out in ITS at IETF, >since > currently this type of applications are not supported at >IP networking > layer. > > JS: mention that it would not help the progress if we >only focus on > the items we presented, specifically some of the items >could already > be done at IETF in different WGs (netext, 6man, dmm, >manet). > IPv6-over-foo could be done in 6man; what is special to >vehicular > networks that is not normally done in other groups? > Recommend to look > at the scenarios first, and then define the technologies >that could be > used in the scenarios and afterwards how are they >referring to > networking items/issues; based on this approach one >could identify the > scenarios, technologies and networking items/issues and >then write the > requirements that are accompanying these scenarios; >These requirements > will then be representing/relating to the identified >networked items. > > About addressing within one vehicle: > - why dont you use ULAs? > - ULAs are good, and they need some seed to generate >uniqueness and > also it would be good for some vehicular applications to >revert back > from an address into an identifier of vehicle, and need >of prefix. > > About IPv6 over 802.11p: mention that IEEE 802.11p, >recommends the use > of IEEE 802.11e for QoS differentiation, that can be >used for message > differentiation, e.g., differentiate between emergency >and > non-emergency messages. > > About PMIP-NEMO: > - why do you want to do this, because already NETEXT >does so. > - yes but do they do V2V2I as well? (current netext work >seems > pertinent to V2I exclusively). > > Next steps: > - try to first get more support from the automotive >industry and the > SDOs, like ETSI ITS. > - try to acquire results from the >verification/validation process of > the implemented ISO CALM TC 204 and ETSI ITS protocol >stacks from > the Drive C2X FP7 project. > - identify scenarios, technologies and networking items >that are > aligned with the other SDOs, like ETSI ITS > - Based on these scenarios, technologies and networking >items, derive > the problem statement, requirements and goals that >will need to be > worked out by the ITS WG. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > its mailing list > its@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its From thierry.ernst@inria.fr Thu Aug 2 05:37:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F02F521F8B28 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 05:37:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -11.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bQ5JKDBr7RMe for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 05:37:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A83121F8B23 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 05:37:45 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,701,1336341600"; d="vcf'?scan'208";a="168898597" Received: from dhcp-rocq-181.inria.fr ([128.93.62.181]) by mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA; 02 Aug 2012 14:37:40 +0200 Message-ID: <501A7494.70506@inria.fr> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:37:40 +0200 From: Thierry Ernst Organization: INRIA User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: karagian@cs.utwente.nl References: <501886B9.4090805@gmail.com>, <50195B30.5020700@inria.fr> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------080408040804050901020802" Cc: its@ietf.org Subject: Re: [its] minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 2012, IETF 84, Vancouver X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Intelligent Transportation Systems discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 12:37:52 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080408040804050901020802 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Georgios, all, On 01/08/12 19:33, karagian@cs.utwente.nl wrote: > Hi Thierry, > > Thanks very much for the comments! > > Below I am providing questions to some of your comments/statements: > >> However, other ITS-related projects do: FOTsis, ITSSv6, SCORE@F. Results are not available yet, but >> there will be demonstrations performed at the next ITS World Congress. > Georgios: Is it possible to inform us as soon as these results are available? I will as soon as there is published material as some material will be made publicly available anyway. > > > while it is true that IPv6 is not considered by ISO/ETSI for >> time-critical road safety application, there are other road safety >> applications without strong time constraints that could benefit from >> IPv6. Some may even require IPv6, e.g. if routing through the Internet >> is required. The time critical safety applications that are considered >> at ETSI are indeed typical V2V applications (or V2R2V is the roadside is >> used as a forwarder) where Internet connectivity is not required. > Georgios: Can you please list/describe these road safety applications that could benefit from IPv6? I give you an example: a vehicle detects black ice. Providing this information to other vehicles is two-fold: - for the vehicles immediately following, this is a time-critical road safety information - for the vehicles that will drive on the same portion of road in 5, 10, 50 minutes, 1hour, 2hours later, it is also a road safety information, but not time-critical. Providing this information to these vehicles may involved either a traffic control ITS station and/or a roaside ITS station at some cross-road ahead. Depending on the technologies used, IPv6 may be needed (and I would advocate that using IPv6 will simplify the handling, whatever the scenarios, the radio technology and network setup). >> - indeed, a liaison between ISO and IETF is (tentatively) under setup, >> but is not progressing fast because of the difference in the nature of >> the two organizations (ISO is very formal, has strict procedures, and >> takes decision once every 6 months). > Georgios: Great news! When do you expect a decision from ISO on this issue? This is on the plate since the IETF in Hiroshima :-( when I discussed with Olaf Kolkman for the fist time. It was said that ISO shall issue a letter; this took time for ISO to decide to send a letter, and even more to figure out who to send it to (to IETF or ISOC etc) etc. I didn't push too much on this because I was first expecting the final version of standard ISO 21210 to be published, and because I didn't see much interest from the IETF side. Now these two conditions are relaxed, so I'm going to push ISO to progress this with the IETF. Regards, Thierry > > Best regards, > Georgios > > > > ________________________________________ > Van: its-bounces@ietf.org [its-bounces@ietf.org] namens Thierry Ernst [thierry.ernst@inria.fr] > Verzonden: woensdag 1 augustus 2012 18:37 > Aan: its@ietf.org > Onderwerp: Re: [its] minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 2012, IETF 84, Vancouver > > Dear all, > > I have put the slides of the presentation on the same page as the one > used for meeting in Paris, see > http://imara.inria.fr/ietf-its#meeting_at_ietf83_-_paris > > Comment to the minutes: > > - since ISO TC204 WG16 (CALM group) and the ISO/ETSI ITS station > reference architecture is mentioned (specification ISO 2127), I'm happy > to announce you that the final version of the ISO standard on IPv6 > networking for ITS (ISO 21210) has just been published last month: > http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=46549. There are > other IPv6-related standards under preparation at ISO and they are > addressing some if not most of the issues discussed at the IETF meeting. > > - the European project DriveC2X is not implementing nor testing anything > about IPv6. However, other ITS-related projects do: FOTsis, ITSSv6, > SCORE@F. Results are not available yet, but there will be demonstrations > performed at the next ITS World Congress. > > - while it is true that IPv6 is not considered by ISO/ETSI for > time-critical road safety application, there are other road safety > applications without strong time constraints that could benefit from > IPv6. Some may even require IPv6, e.g. if routing through the Internet > is required. The time critical safety applications that are considered > at ETSI are indeed typical V2V applications (or V2R2V is the roadside is > used as a forwarder) where Internet connectivity is not required. > > - IPv6 is not considered for those time critical applications because > IPv6 is mainly criticized for the size of the packet header (by ETSI > solutions on GeoNetworking is not any better on this), and for the lack > of QoS or Security (this is what they say). > > - ISO is an organization that is working on architectures, taking into > consideration legal and registration aspects for the various use cases. > So, ISO knows what the needs and constraints are, thus I would assume > any attempt to set up a working group to consider ISO needs first. > > - indeed, a liaison between ISO and IETF is (tentatively) under setup, > but is not progressing fast because of the difference in the nature of > the two organizations (ISO is very formal, has strict procedures, and > takes decision once every 6 months). > > > Regards, > Thierry. > > On 01/08/12 03:30, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: >> Dear participants to ITS, >> >> Please find below minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 2012, IETF 84, >> Vancouver. >> >> If modifications are needed then please ask. >> >> Yours, >> >> Alex >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Minutes of the meeting >> bar BoF >> ITS IP for Intelligent Transportation Systems >> July 30th, 2012 >> IETF84 Vancouver, room Plaza C, Hotel Hyatt >> 19h30-20h30 >> slides at http://web.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~ryuji/its.html >> email list: its@ietf.org and https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its >> Contact organizers: >> Alexandru Petrescu, alexandru.petresuc@gmail.com >> Georgios Karagiannis, g.karagiannis@utwente.nl >> >> On average 10 people were present; list available upon request. >> >> 2 presented. >> >> Note that during this meeting Georgios presented use cases on Traffic >> efficiency and Infotainment vehicular applications. However, the use >> cases on Traffic safety applications are presented during the previous >> meeting, see: >> >> http://imara.inria.fr/ietf-its >> >> Comment received: from RtiV: it is important to identify how to get >> information from the current ITS protocol solutions that are developed >> in the ETSI ITS group, as well as in ISO CALM; the main comment is >> that what we do in IETF should be at least somehow aligned with what >> the other SDOs (ETSI ITS and ISCO CALM TC 204) are doing. Currently, >> at least one EU FP7 project (e.g., Drive C2X) is implementing and >> verifying the protocol stacks that are specified in ISO CALM TC 204 >> and ETSI ITS; it would be important to wait to receive the results of >> this verification. This might lead to signifficant work that could be >> in the IETF in the area of ITS to solve identified problems. >> >> RtiV: the traffic safety application will probably not be part of the >> solution space that could be worked out in ITS at IETF, since >> currently this type of applications are not supported at IP networking >> layer. >> >> JS: mention that it would not help the progress if we only focus on >> the items we presented, specifically some of the items could already >> be done at IETF in different WGs (netext, 6man, dmm, manet). >> IPv6-over-foo could be done in 6man; what is special to vehicular >> networks that is not normally done in other groups? Recommend to look >> at the scenarios first, and then define the technologies that could be >> used in the scenarios and afterwards how are they referring to >> networking items/issues; based on this approach one could identify the >> scenarios, technologies and networking items/issues and then write the >> requirements that are accompanying these scenarios; These requirements >> will then be representing/relating to the identified networked items. >> >> About addressing within one vehicle: >> - why dont you use ULAs? >> - ULAs are good, and they need some seed to generate uniqueness and >> also it would be good for some vehicular applications to revert back >> from an address into an identifier of vehicle, and need of prefix. >> >> About IPv6 over 802.11p: mention that IEEE 802.11p, recommends the use >> of IEEE 802.11e for QoS differentiation, that can be used for message >> differentiation, e.g., differentiate between emergency and >> non-emergency messages. >> >> About PMIP-NEMO: >> - why do you want to do this, because already NETEXT does so. >> - yes but do they do V2V2I as well? (current netext work seems >> pertinent to V2I exclusively). >> >> Next steps: >> - try to first get more support from the automotive industry and the >> SDOs, like ETSI ITS. >> - try to acquire results from the verification/validation process of >> the implemented ISO CALM TC 204 and ETSI ITS protocol stacks from >> the Drive C2X FP7 project. >> - identify scenarios, technologies and networking items that are >> aligned with the other SDOs, like ETSI ITS >> - Based on these scenarios, technologies and networking items, derive >> the problem statement, requirements and goals that will need to be >> worked out by the ITS WG. >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> _______________________________________________ >> its mailing list >> its@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its --------------080408040804050901020802 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="thierry_ernst.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="thierry_ernst.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Thierry Ernst n:Ernst;Thierry org:INRIA - Project Team IMARA - LaRA JRU tel;work:+33 1 3963 59 30 tel;fax:+33 1 39 63 54 91 tel;cell:+33 6 76 56 25 96 url:http://www.lara.prd.fr version:2.1 end:vcard --------------080408040804050901020802-- From karagian@cs.utwente.nl Thu Aug 2 09:39:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 959B611E8126 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:39:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k8zJybrPg8UE for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:39:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXEDGE02.ad.utwente.nl (exedge02.ad.utwente.nl [130.89.5.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3122E11E8121 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:39:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXHUB02.ad.utwente.nl (130.89.4.229) by EXEDGE02.ad.utwente.nl (130.89.5.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 18:39:21 +0200 Received: from EXMBX04.ad.utwente.nl ([169.254.4.41]) by EXHUB02.ad.utwente.nl ([130.89.4.229]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 18:39:21 +0200 From: To: Thread-Topic: [its] minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 2012, IETF 84, Vancouver Thread-Index: AQHNb4VHP/S1qOwHdUiY1+ufdA3bupdFBzIAgAAvWQuAASAYAIAAZCSR Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:39:20 +0000 Message-ID: References: <501886B9.4090805@gmail.com>,<50195B30.5020700@inria.fr> , <501A7494.70506@inria.fr> In-Reply-To: <501A7494.70506@inria.fr> Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US Content-Language: nl-NL X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [208.181.206.247] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: its@ietf.org Subject: Re: [its] minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 2012, IETF 84, Vancouver X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Intelligent Transportation Systems discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:39:25 -0000 Dear Thierry, Thank you for the useful information! Best regards, Georgios ________________________________________ Van: Thierry Ernst [thierry.ernst@inria.fr] Verzonden: donderdag 2 augustus 2012 14:37 Aan: Karagiannis, G. (EWI) CC: its@ietf.org Onderwerp: Re: [its] minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 2012, IETF 84, Vanco= uver Dear Georgios, all, On 01/08/12 19:33, karagian@cs.utwente.nl wrote: > Hi Thierry, > > Thanks very much for the comments! > > Below I am providing questions to some of your comments/statements: > >> However, other ITS-related projects do: FOTsis, ITSSv6, SCORE@F. Results= are not available yet, but >> there will be demonstrations performed at the next ITS World Congress. > Georgios: Is it possible to inform us as soon as these results are availa= ble? I will as soon as there is published material as some material will be made publicly available anyway. > > > while it is true that IPv6 is not considered by ISO/ETSI for >> time-critical road safety application, there are other road safety >> applications without strong time constraints that could benefit from >> IPv6. Some may even require IPv6, e.g. if routing through the Internet >> is required. The time critical safety applications that are considered >> at ETSI are indeed typical V2V applications (or V2R2V is the roadside is >> used as a forwarder) where Internet connectivity is not required. > Georgios: Can you please list/describe these road safety applications th= at could benefit from IPv6? I give you an example: a vehicle detects black ice. Providing this information to other vehicles is two-fold: - for the vehicles immediately following, this is a time-critical road safety information - for the vehicles that will drive on the same portion of road in 5, 10, 50 minutes, 1hour, 2hours later, it is also a road safety information, but not time-critical. Providing this information to these vehicles may involved either a traffic control ITS station and/or a roaside ITS station at some cross-road ahead. Depending on the technologies used, IPv6 may be needed (and I would advocate that using IPv6 will simplify the handling, whatever the scenarios, the radio technology and network setup). >> - indeed, a liaison between ISO and IETF is (tentatively) under setup, >> but is not progressing fast because of the difference in the nature of >> the two organizations (ISO is very formal, has strict procedures, and >> takes decision once every 6 months). > Georgios: Great news! When do you expect a decision from ISO on this issu= e? This is on the plate since the IETF in Hiroshima :-( when I discussed with Olaf Kolkman for the fist time. It was said that ISO shall issue a letter; this took time for ISO to decide to send a letter, and even more to figure out who to send it to (to IETF or ISOC etc) etc. I didn't push too much on this because I was first expecting the final version of standard ISO 21210 to be published, and because I didn't see much interest from the IETF side. Now these two conditions are relaxed, so I'm going to push ISO to progress this with the IETF. Regards, Thierry > > Best regards, > Georgios > > > > ________________________________________ > Van: its-bounces@ietf.org [its-bounces@ietf.org] namens Thierry Ernst [th= ierry.ernst@inria.fr] > Verzonden: woensdag 1 augustus 2012 18:37 > Aan: its@ietf.org > Onderwerp: Re: [its] minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 2012, IETF 84, Van= couver > > Dear all, > > I have put the slides of the presentation on the same page as the one > used for meeting in Paris, see > http://imara.inria.fr/ietf-its#meeting_at_ietf83_-_paris > > Comment to the minutes: > > - since ISO TC204 WG16 (CALM group) and the ISO/ETSI ITS station > reference architecture is mentioned (specification ISO 2127), I'm happy > to announce you that the final version of the ISO standard on IPv6 > networking for ITS (ISO 21210) has just been published last month: > http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=3D46549. There are > other IPv6-related standards under preparation at ISO and they are > addressing some if not most of the issues discussed at the IETF meeting. > > - the European project DriveC2X is not implementing nor testing anything > about IPv6. However, other ITS-related projects do: FOTsis, ITSSv6, > SCORE@F. Results are not available yet, but there will be demonstrations > performed at the next ITS World Congress. > > - while it is true that IPv6 is not considered by ISO/ETSI for > time-critical road safety application, there are other road safety > applications without strong time constraints that could benefit from > IPv6. Some may even require IPv6, e.g. if routing through the Internet > is required. The time critical safety applications that are considered > at ETSI are indeed typical V2V applications (or V2R2V is the roadside is > used as a forwarder) where Internet connectivity is not required. > > - IPv6 is not considered for those time critical applications because > IPv6 is mainly criticized for the size of the packet header (by ETSI > solutions on GeoNetworking is not any better on this), and for the lack > of QoS or Security (this is what they say). > > - ISO is an organization that is working on architectures, taking into > consideration legal and registration aspects for the various use cases. > So, ISO knows what the needs and constraints are, thus I would assume > any attempt to set up a working group to consider ISO needs first. > > - indeed, a liaison between ISO and IETF is (tentatively) under setup, > but is not progressing fast because of the difference in the nature of > the two organizations (ISO is very formal, has strict procedures, and > takes decision once every 6 months). > > > Regards, > Thierry. > > On 01/08/12 03:30, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: >> Dear participants to ITS, >> >> Please find below minutes of bar bof ITS July 30th, 2012, IETF 84, >> Vancouver. >> >> If modifications are needed then please ask. >> >> Yours, >> >> Alex >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Minutes of the meeting >> bar BoF >> ITS IP for Intelligent Transportation Systems >> July 30th, 2012 >> IETF84 Vancouver, room Plaza C, Hotel Hyatt >> 19h30-20h30 >> slides at http://web.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~ryuji/its.html >> email list: its@ietf.org and https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its >> Contact organizers: >> Alexandru Petrescu, alexandru.petresuc@gmail.com >> Georgios Karagiannis, g.karagiannis@utwente.nl >> >> On average 10 people were present; list available upon request. >> >> 2 presented. >> >> Note that during this meeting Georgios presented use cases on Traffic >> efficiency and Infotainment vehicular applications. However, the use >> cases on Traffic safety applications are presented during the previous >> meeting, see: >> >> http://imara.inria.fr/ietf-its >> >> Comment received: from RtiV: it is important to identify how to get >> information from the current ITS protocol solutions that are developed >> in the ETSI ITS group, as well as in ISO CALM; the main comment is >> that what we do in IETF should be at least somehow aligned with what >> the other SDOs (ETSI ITS and ISCO CALM TC 204) are doing. Currently, >> at least one EU FP7 project (e.g., Drive C2X) is implementing and >> verifying the protocol stacks that are specified in ISO CALM TC 204 >> and ETSI ITS; it would be important to wait to receive the results of >> this verification. This might lead to signifficant work that could be >> in the IETF in the area of ITS to solve identified problems. >> >> RtiV: the traffic safety application will probably not be part of the >> solution space that could be worked out in ITS at IETF, since >> currently this type of applications are not supported at IP networking >> layer. >> >> JS: mention that it would not help the progress if we only focus on >> the items we presented, specifically some of the items could already >> be done at IETF in different WGs (netext, 6man, dmm, manet). >> IPv6-over-foo could be done in 6man; what is special to vehicular >> networks that is not normally done in other groups? Recommend to look >> at the scenarios first, and then define the technologies that could be >> used in the scenarios and afterwards how are they referring to >> networking items/issues; based on this approach one could identify the >> scenarios, technologies and networking items/issues and then write the >> requirements that are accompanying these scenarios; These requirements >> will then be representing/relating to the identified networked items. >> >> About addressing within one vehicle: >> - why dont you use ULAs? >> - ULAs are good, and they need some seed to generate uniqueness and >> also it would be good for some vehicular applications to revert back >> from an address into an identifier of vehicle, and need of prefix. >> >> About IPv6 over 802.11p: mention that IEEE 802.11p, recommends the use >> of IEEE 802.11e for QoS differentiation, that can be used for message >> differentiation, e.g., differentiate between emergency and >> non-emergency messages. >> >> About PMIP-NEMO: >> - why do you want to do this, because already NETEXT does so. >> - yes but do they do V2V2I as well? (current netext work seems >> pertinent to V2I exclusively). >> >> Next steps: >> - try to first get more support from the automotive industry and the >> SDOs, like ETSI ITS. >> - try to acquire results from the verification/validation process of >> the implemented ISO CALM TC 204 and ETSI ITS protocol stacks from >> the Drive C2X FP7 project. >> - identify scenarios, technologies and networking items that are >> aligned with the other SDOs, like ETSI ITS >> - Based on these scenarios, technologies and networking items, derive >> the problem statement, requirements and goals that will need to be >> worked out by the ITS WG. >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> _______________________________________________ >> its mailing list >> its@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its= From william.d.ivancic@nasa.gov Mon Aug 6 09:24:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329AE21F8567 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:24:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.361 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.361 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.237, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wCO3CwQD5Bf8 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:24:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ndjsnpf02.ndc.nasa.gov (ndjsnpf02.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.1.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E17A21F848B for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:24:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ndjsppt03.ndc.nasa.gov (ndjsppt04.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.1.103]) by ndjsnpf02.ndc.nasa.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35D9DA85C5 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 11:24:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ndjshub04.ndc.nasa.gov (ndjshub04-pub.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.1.34]) by ndjsppt04.ndc.nasa.gov (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q76GOCqO025993 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 11:24:12 -0500 Received: from NDJSSCC07.ndc.nasa.gov ([198.117.4.178]) by ndjshub04.ndc.nasa.gov ([10.202.202.163]) with mapi; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 11:24:12 -0500 From: "Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0)" To: "its@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 11:24:11 -0500 Thread-Topic: Car Hacking Thread-Index: Ac1z7+nzLZ8xTT/OQs+B2fkVIFRuRw== Message-ID: <5E08D31C-CFED-4CFE-B0FF-557624E0F885@nasa.gov> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5E08D31CCFED4CFEB0FF557624E0F885nasagov_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.7.7855, 1.0.260, 0.0.0000 definitions=2012-08-06_04:2012-08-06, 2012-08-06, 1970-01-01 signatures=0 Subject: [its] Car Hacking X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Intelligent Transportation Systems discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 16:24:15 -0000 --_000_5E08D31CCFED4CFEB0FF557624E0F885nasagov_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable FYI, thought it may be on interest. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229919/Car_hacking_Bluetooth_and_ot= her_security_issues?source=3DCTWNLE_nlt_thisweek_2012-08-06 - Will Ivancic ****************************** William D. Ivancic Phone 216-433-3494 Fax 216-433-8705 Networking Lab 216-433-2620 Mobile 440-503-4892 http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~ivancic --_000_5E08D31CCFED4CFEB0FF557624E0F885nasagov_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable FYI, thought it may be on = interest.


- Will Ivancic
******************************
William D. Ivancic
Phone 2= 16-433-3494
Fax 216-433-8705
Networking Lab 216-433-2620
Mobile 440-503-4892
http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~= ivancic

= --_000_5E08D31CCFED4CFEB0FF557624E0F885nasagov_-- From ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com Mon Aug 13 23:59:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 269FA11E808D for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:59:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EJ7dyL+PJKcu for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:59:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E107411E8098 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:59:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yenm5 with SMTP id m5so75405yen.31 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:59:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=HUjpwEHJsILcfnXpsOvgjVePeqDWuQp2dxF2TCJdIPo=; b=NYKPOvGKTv++lcKOu3cnZJS7y2UDmrQubfveQLcv+a+wNOTbdd10oMNPX0F6CxrWxv mldrHC+mq4F02ZRQUoXmiU0uvNd2Wfe3t1yEej52xn9a3WGWpE93U4aV2cdrdWjKj+Mb PFpFR8c3j+JU5v9cFanxrLpde3oKL8B3YWLjPodOBUg/wXu25wKf37Y6hlWLVAa5z9AZ 1IFq904BAZecufiKXFz3R9d+Dxnw91aBps6iaEccBTdX4I0lhOcJTGsBYm5zyDeRWdYt SLmwW9i2Ziz/TGt6pbX+tP/tAsbUzKtnc5rLemAGg6zmaoOkh2YLOkfiHXqxxAeuyToN +fSA== Received: by 10.50.189.167 with SMTP id gj7mr7862997igc.34.1344927568173; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:59:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.29] (c-98-248-44-75.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [98.248.44.75]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id pp4sm19465499igb.5.2012.08.13.23.59.21 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:59:27 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.0 \(1485\)) From: Ryuji Wakikawa In-Reply-To: <71AA9D08-54D6-4F1D-A154-86CA6024BA5F@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:59:21 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4602F2A0-4CF5-4A2E-A56C-81F93692B884@gmail.com> References: <1B40484159234F4FB6FE11D4C2F408DE01916FC9@SUKNPT8108.cogent-dsn.local> <501804C1.90303@gmail.com> <71AA9D08-54D6-4F1D-A154-86CA6024BA5F@gmail.com> To: Alexandru Petrescu , its@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1485) Cc: Ryuji Wakikawa , John Dowdell Subject: Re: [its] Meeting Slide (Re: invitation in English) X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Intelligent Transportation Systems discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 06:59:30 -0000 Hi, please use the new link http://imara.inria.fr/ietf-its . This new link is also available at my older page. ryuji On Jul 31, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Ryuji Wakikawa = wrote: > Alex and all, >=20 > I upload the presentation slides upon Alex's request. >=20 > http://web.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~ryuji/its.html >=20 > regards, > ryuji >=20 > On Jul 31, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: >=20 >> John, >>=20 >> Sorry I did not record the meeting on webex. >>=20 >> I would like to upload the upload the slides but I dont know where. = Is >> there a site where I could upload the slides? >>=20 >> Also, we will soon send some notes about some discussion points. >>=20 >> Yours, >>=20 >> Alex >>=20 >> Le 31/07/2012 02:09, John Dowdell a =E9crit : >>> Alex >>>=20 >>> For those of us who could not make the meeting, was the WebEx >>> recorded? If so, where can we access the recording please? >>>=20 >>> John >>>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- From: its-bounces@ietf.org >>> [mailto:its-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu Sent: >>> 30 July 2012 17:00 To: its@ietf.org Subject: [its] invitation in >>> English >>>=20 >>> The webex invitation is in French, but all you need is click the url >>> and use the password itsietf >>>=20 >>> = https://cea-list.webex.com/cea-list/j.php?ED=3D219289702&UID=3D0&PW=3DNOGF= mZmI1MzA2&RT=3DNyM0 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >> Do not hesitate to ask if it doesnt work. Copy the list. >>>=20 >>> Yours, >>>=20 >>> Alex >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> = --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >> Bonjour , >>>=20 >>> Alexandru PETRESCU vous invite =E0 participer =E0 cette r=E9union en >>> ligne. >>>=20 >>> Sujet : bar BoF ITS at IETF Vancouver Date : lundi 30 juillet 2012 >>> Heure : 19:15, Heure d'=E9t=E9 du Pacifique (San Francisco, = GMT-07:00) >>> Num=E9ro de la r=E9union : 707 259 126 Mot de passe de la r=E9union = : >>> itsietf >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> ------------------------------------------------------- Pour >>> participer =E0 la r=E9union en ligne (Maintenant depuis vos = appareils >>> mobiles !) ------------------------------------------------------- >>> 1. Allez sur le site >>> = https://cea-list.webex.com/cea-list/j.php?ED=3D219289702&UID=3D0&PW=3DNOGF= mZmI1MzA2&RT=3DNyM0 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >> 2. Si demand=E9, entrez votre nom et votre adresse email. 3. Si un = mot >>> de passe est exig=E9, entrez le mot de passe de r=E9union : itsietf = 4. >>> Cliquez sur "Participer". >>>=20 >>> Pour afficher les autres fuseaux horaires ou langues disponibles, >>> cliquez sur le lien : >>> = https://cea-list.webex.com/cea-list/j.php?ED=3D219289702&UID=3D0&PW=3DNOGF= mZmI1MzA2&ORT=3DNyM0 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> ------------------------------------------------------- Pour >>> participer uniquement =E0 la t=E9l=E9conf=E9rence >>> ------------------------------------------------------- Afficher >>> num=E9ros internationaux : >>> = https://webexap.arkadin.com/GlobalNum.aspx?TollNum=3D172283003&TollNumCC=3D= 1&TollFreeNum=3D805103003&TollFreeNumCC=3D1&ParticipantCode=3D26174894 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >> Participant Pin Code : 261 748 94 >>>=20 >>> ------------------------------------------------------- Pour obtenir >>> de l'aide ------------------------------------------------------- 1. >>> Allez sur le site https://cea-list.webex.com/cea-list/mc 2. Dans la >>> barre de navigation, =E0 gauche, cliquez sur Assistance. >>>=20 >>> Vous pouvez me contacter au : alexandru.petrescu@cea.fr >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Pour ajouter cette r=E9union =E0 votre programme de calendrier (par >>> exemple dans Microsoft Outlook), cliquez sur ce lien : >>> = https://cea-list.webex.com/cea-list/j.php?ED=3D219289702&UID=3D0&ICS=3DMI&= LD=3D7&RD=3D7&ST=3D1&SHA2=3Dxd-ZtUtFGPHVKL3F5v3yIAWmhqjDuG4fv3LhnwhCrIc=3D= &RT=3DNyM0 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Pour lire des fichiers rich media UCF (Universal Communications >>> Format), vous devez disposer de lecteurs compatibles. V=E9rifiez que >>> votre ordinateur poss=E8de les lecteurs ad=E9quats en acc=E9dant =E0 >>> https://cea-list.webex.com/cea-list/systemdiagnosis.php. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> REMARQUE IMPORTANTE : Ce service WebEx comprend une fonctionnalit=E9 >>> qui permet l'enregistrement de l'audio, des documents et de tous >>> mat=E9riels =E9chang=E9s ou visualis=E9s pendant une session. En = prenant >>> part =E0 cette session, vous consentez =E0 ces enregistrements. Si = vous >>> ne consentez pas =E0 ces enregistrements, discutez-en avec >>> l'organisateur de la r=E9union avant le d=E9but de l'enregistrement = ou ne >>> rejoignez pas la session. Veuillez prendre note que de tels >>> enregistrements peuvent =EAtre communiqu=E9s en cas de litiges. >>> _______________________________________________ its mailing list >>> its@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its >>>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> its mailing list >> its@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its >=20 > _______________________________________________ > its mailing list > its@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its From thierry.ernst@inria.fr Fri Aug 24 03:10:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81D3C21F86BD for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 03:10:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MsO4qFQiOhWZ for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 03:10:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D9C921F86AB for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 03:10:24 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,302,1344204000"; d="vcf'?scan'208";a="170702152" Received: from roc047r.vpn.inria.fr (HELO Mont-Ventoux.local) ([128.93.183.47]) by mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 24 Aug 2012 12:10:20 +0200 Message-ID: <5037530A.3090900@inria.fr> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:10:18 +0200 From: Thierry Ernst Organization: INRIA User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: its@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------090308040107040400090506" Subject: [its] IETF ITS material permanently available at http://www.lara.prd.fr/ietf-its X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Intelligent Transportation Systems discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:10:28 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090308040107040400090506 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, Sorry for the trouble, but due to a new internal web configuration, the ITS page is not reachable at http://imara.inria.fr/ietf-its anymore. A more permanent link is http://www.lara.prd.fr/ietf-its where this page should always be available. So just replace the domain name in all past links, Regards, Thierry Ernst --------------090308040107040400090506 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="thierry_ernst.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="thierry_ernst.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Thierry Ernst n:Ernst;Thierry org:INRIA - Project Team IMARA - LaRA JRU tel;work:+33 1 3963 59 30 tel;fax:+33 1 39 63 54 91 tel;cell:+33 6 76 56 25 96 url:http://www.lara.prd.fr version:2.1 end:vcard --------------090308040107040400090506--