Subject: [geonet/its] Current geonet charter

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 08:24:53 -0900

I've appended a copy of the current state of the geonet charter.
As things currently stand we will not be having a formal BOF
in London but we are moving towards getting a working group
chartered, hopefully by Toronto, and will be having an informal
side-meeting in London to try to firm up the charter proposal
and problem statement.  We are looking for feedback on and
discussion of the charter text.

Thanks,

Melinda and Alex

			  GeoNet BoF at IETF
			   Charter Proposal
			  January 23rd, 2014
	     https://github.com/MelindaShore/geonet/wiki

Internet-Wide GeoNetworking (GeoNet)
------------------------------------
Current Status: BoF

Chairs:
  Melinda Shore
  Alexandru Petrescu

Assigned Area Director:
  Ted Lemon

Mailing list
  Address: [email-masked]
  To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
  Archive:
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/its/current/maillist.html

Additional web page:
  https://github.com/MelindaShore/geonet/wiki
  or the older http://www.lara.prd.fr/ietf-its

Charter Proposal

The group is concerned with Internet-wide geonetworking.

IP routing and addressing are completely unaware of geography.
Mechanisms and IETF protocols are needed for authorized source nodes
anywhere in the Internet to disseminate packets to other nodes in
areas described by geographic parameters, while respecting the privacy
concerns of sender and receiver.  Parameters such as geographical
coordinates and other geo-locators such as civic addresses should be
usable in order to specify the destination of the dissemination.

The new dissemination mechanism can not be used to identify the
geographical situation of computers issuing requests to resources, nor
to prevent access based on such supposed identification.

The initial objectives of the group are focused in particular on a
common vocabulary for contexts using IP protocols and geography
coordinates, on a data definition of geolocators, and on defining a
bi-directional relationship - not a mechanism - between geo-spatial
locators and IP locators.

In general, for a complete solution, mechanisms and protocol solutions
are needed for the items below:

. for the accurate representation of geographic areas using
  coordinates such as (1) geolocators/logical coordinates,
  and (2) geographical/physical coordinates, and for the
  naming of geographic areas.

. to ensure that geographical area information (for example,
  geolocators, names, and physical geographic coordinates)
  is accurately mapped to an IP address or addresses.
  Databases associating locations with addresses may be
  maintained at the source nodes, intermediate or edge
  nodes, and at specific IP locator nodes.

. to ensure that an IP address can be accurately mapped to a
  geographic area information (geo-locators, names, and geographic
  physical coordinates).  Note that this refers to the addresses of
  access routers, roadside units (RSUs), and so on, and not end nodes.
  Mapping data bases can be maintained at the source nodes,
  intermediate or edge nodes, and at specific IP locator nodes.

. to ensure that data packets generated by source nodes placed
  arbitrarily in the Internet can be forwarded over multiple hops by
  using, where possible, geographic location representations of (1) the
  destination node(s) and/or (2) the intermediate nodes for the
  routing decisions, instead of using their IP addresses.  Note that
  in order to solve the above challenge it is NOT mandated that all
  nodes located on the path from source to destination nodes are able
  to forward packets using the geo-coordinates of (1) the destination
  node(s) and/or (2) the intermediate nodes for the routing
  decisions. This is emphasized by using the words "where possible".

The main use-cases are:
o dissemination to a geographical area
o goods tracking
o vehicular traffic safety, efficiency, management and infotainment
o mobile road-side unit
o identification of originating area
o geolocation of instrumented ambulance

Protocol work would begin after completion of the work items listed
below, and upon rechartering.

Work Items
----------
o Problem Statement I-D (INFORMATIONAL)
o GeoNet Terminology I-D (INFORMATIONAL)
o Data Description of Geospatial Locators I-D (INFORMATIONAL)
o GeoNet Framework  (INFORMATIONAL)
o Mapping Between IP Locators and Geospatial Locators (INFORMATIONAL)

Milestones:
  Jul 2014 -

  Oct 2014 -

  Mar 2015 -

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 21:24:21 +0100

My feedback before were [1][2] and for the current charter the
feedbacks are below inline,

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/its/current/msg00797.html
[2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/its/current/msg00371.html

>   naming of geographic areas.

mechanism for just representing, so it is not geonetwoking

>   nodes, and at specific IP locator nodes.

mechanism for just gaurantee mapping, so it is not geonetwoking

>   intermediate or edge nodes, and at specific IP locator nodes.

mechanism for just gaurantee mapping, so it is not geonetwoking

>   decisions. This is emphasized by using the words "where possible".

no need to say to ensure, please replace it.

So now this point is related to geonetwoking but not clear of the
geo-nodes and their forwardings interoperable with non-geo-nodes.

> o dissemination to a geographical area
change to : dissemination to target geographical spaces/areas/vehicles

> o goods tracking
change to : transported goods tracking or transport context tracking

> o vehicular traffic safety, efficiency, management and infotainment

Why not add as the ITS use case, or smart-transport between areas?
using words without saying transport may not show the real use case. I
think the use cases are all about intelligent transportations (very
easy to say in one line).

> o geolocation of instrumented ambulance

Why the use cases never mention the word *transport*, or
*intelligent/smart* I did miss some discussions but I hope the group
did not agree to delet the word transport.

AB