Subject: [its] minutes of the 'geonet' BoF meeting - please correct where wrong

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 01:49:23 +0100

Hello ITSers,

Thanks to the minute takers.

Please see below the minutes of the 'geonet' BoF.  Please correct were 
necessary.

Following these correcitons I must upload them on the Proceedings of the 
IETF88 soon.

Thanks,

Alex
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

IETF Geonet BOF minutes

Nov 5 2013

1:00 to 2:00 PM pacific time

Note taker: Mike Kallas

Agenda shown
Note Well slide displayed to room.
Margaret could not make it
Agenda shown
Webex is up

Alex: Introductions.

Internet wide geo networking

Explained other related work by other groups

Disseminating IP packets to geographical areas. Or receiving IP
packets from a geographical area.

Problem statement draft presented by Georgios Karagiannis

Georgios: Challenges presented in the problem statement is not
addressed by IETF or any other bodies

Lost protocol: Location to service mapping

Two solution presented have actual implementations

Suggestion: List all the related working groups
Answer: no working group working on the exact same problem

Question: both use cases similar to ETSI scope. I don t see a wider
coverage than the ad hoc implementation. Why not use ETSI Answer:
short range only. Source has to be close to the area. This is internet
wide solution: provide that ability to any source on the internet to
send information to geographic areas.

Question: Bob (Verizon) this is how things work right. What about when
things go wrong? What about malicious events. Like to see attack
review, failure nodes scenarios.  Answer: Security and privacy are
very important. We have to focus on it

Next on the Agenda: implementation Interest: presentation.

Last topic: IPv6 over 802.11p. Presentation

End of presentation part.

Interest, clarifications.

Question: problem not well defined. Is it: enumerate IP addresses that
are currently in a geographical area to send to.

Answer: its is one of the potential solutions.

Answer: need to better define the problem statement. Need to learn
geographic proximity of certain devices and leave it at a high level
(not just IP) other options are possible.

Answer: looking at a relationship between IP addresses and locations
of Access Routers.

Question: requirements around trust model on the geographic database?
Are the set of networks all part of the same organization or people
who don't trust each other? Multiple network providers? Could
affect trust model

Answer: both are relevant. Security is very important. Trust with
respect to positioning is different from security as defined in
IETF. Precision is also a factor. Trust of position: precision should
be part of the discussion. Main concern not who owns IP but where it
is

Question: uniqueness vs non uniqueness and indirection in
addressing. For example who is moving and who is not. ILNP tries to do
indirection. Other issues are privacy: present information without
identifying person. You may not want symmetric behavior V2x different
mechanism from x2V.

Answer: thank you. Agree on non symmetry. Need to take ILNP into
account in addition to others. DNS, LOST

Question: Guarantees. Are you only sending to the area. Is it ok it
reaches outside the area? Are you expecting error messages if the
message does not reach?

Answer: Reliability of delivery important

Question: one of the use cases was querying? How do you identify what
nodes you want to query?

Answer: example fire detectors, temperature, wind

Question: translation between geo and IP very important. What about
translating from IP address to geo? May be nice to have the solution
for both.

Answer: yes

Question: IEEE 1609 does not make the documents available. We need to
make them available. Because its related.

Answer: this is an issue and we need help with the liason with IEEE.
Liaison: we will address it.

Question: skeptical about problem. Geographical routing vs optimal routing.

Answer: an optimal IP routing is different from geographic
positioning. Optimal route may not be possible

Stop discussion: need to figure out what will happen next

How many people read the problem statement: only a few
How many saw the charter: a few

Is there work appropriate to the ietf: a few, some reluctance
Not appropriate for IETF: one person only

Scope seems to still be too broad. Is it ready?

Who is interested in working on this? Several people (20)

There is a mailing list including discussing scope
http://ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

Question: there is interest but are we ready to say go? We should not
drop it. Is the next step another BOF?

Interesting in a broad sense but the scope is too wide. Need to narrow
scope. Is there application level stuff needed. Who is capable of
handling the received data.

Ted: have heard there is interest, haven't heard there is a go, but
there honestly this is not a drop issue, next step is maybe another
bof.

Last word: thanks to BOF chairs. Couple of very interesting problems:
actions to move it forward:

Crisp problem statement, a little of solutioneering, iteration on
problems and solutions need to be gone through. More detailed problem
statement more specifity. Look for any existing work. And help limit
the scope of things needed to be done.