From nobody Tue Oct 7 05:25:46 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DA771A1BC9 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 05:25:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.084 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.084 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5o1XMhr7TU98 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 05:25:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 923F81A1BC8 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 05:25:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id s97CPaKh029101 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 14:25:36 +0200 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id DAEDB208821 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 14:26:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C892D20862A for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 14:26:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id s97CPJmi020522 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 14:25:36 +0200 Message-ID: <5433DBAF.8030009@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 14:25:19 +0200 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "its@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/pM4BC0MZrXgNU2AAE5M8H7l19Sc Subject: [geonet/its] Honolulu - no BoF X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "GeoNet BoF discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 12:25:44 -0000 Hello, For your information, there will be no BoF in Honolul for geonet/its. Since Toronto, we have discussed several alternative paths to pursue with geonet/its; one potential path with strong support from a relevant oranization was to BoF. However, after measuring several metrics we decided to not request BoF in Honolulu. I will be in Honolulu and interested to meet aside. Yours, Alex From nobody Tue Oct 7 05:32:51 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72EF31A1BAA for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 05:32:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.983 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qdD0LfotM2p0 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 05:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8085D1A1B84 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 05:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id s97CWjGA027113 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 14:32:45 +0200 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id E42E8208629 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 14:33:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1764208747 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 14:33:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id s97CWeoi032261 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 14:32:45 +0200 Message-ID: <5433DD68.7050506@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 14:32:40 +0200 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "its@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/gm_s7ItQvEXCoDcZnNVQH8N8PgM Subject: [geonet/its] DetNet deterministic networking BoF in Honolulu X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "GeoNet BoF discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 12:32:49 -0000 Dear geonetters, I just noticed there will be a BoF in Honolulu titled "Deterministic Networking". Those interested in vehicular communications may find its (detnet's) onboard aspect promissing. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-finn-detnet-problem-statement-00 Alex From nobody Tue Oct 7 05:52:57 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4797B1A1BAA for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 05:52:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 10XADS2b1aNI for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 05:52:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-x230.google.com (mail-yh0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78C981A1B55 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 05:52:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f48.google.com with SMTP id v1so2890908yhn.7 for ; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 05:52:52 -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=a5wCuhXZeqWSEPRuG7Aul5W0UFKrmr2/xX72PxAqs8o=; b=E60xSjk+AqbKHJhyChhqxPx8Lsrm9KzSm8AjWcBeTfwgslCJmm4kem4UFXm3auUZfm o+uSiYM8AYf8Z5ZEjU8VAJCN5/0QUioba9akDpbNKppWUM+/FP7yePfn9N9pH8pPzoJ/ hMyVa+zaVsPpexyY8cJthe13Vz84QJV4eZ7hUSHwdxmRiuS543SiRlOC+Y/hVoWOEfPu 6bDHVWIRJ/Z2EihMspWudXiXC7V0MMKUk1GwZHjp+Aoue3XqghgJ7bLiG++IR/8cFXPO 36ep6bmsBDyAimBAm4ArXjyXVq6YaqH2Rh/t+6MeAMG2CuAPIw53uvSVep+387BJjAGS T8NA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.94.8 with SMTP id m8mr5175923yhf.31.1412686372205; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 05:52:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.194.68 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 05:52:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5433DBAF.8030009@gmail.com> References: <5433DBAF.8030009@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 14:52:52 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Alexandru Petrescu Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3011de256507c20504d4ad35 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/R6xu0bthC5w5iwU-YvKK6mlFOPo Cc: "its@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [geonet/its] Honolulu - no BoF X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "GeoNet BoF discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 12:52:55 -0000 --20cf3011de256507c20504d4ad35 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I don't mind that as I prefer that ITS-BoF for future IETF meetings which are outside North America. IMHO this group has more interest projects in Europe or Asia. AB On Tuesday, October 7, 2014, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Hello, > > For your information, there will be no BoF in Honolul for geonet/its. > > Since Toronto, we have discussed several alternative paths to pursue with > geonet/its; one potential path with strong support from a relevant > oranization was to BoF. However, after measuring several metrics we > decided to not request BoF in Honolulu. > > I will be in Honolulu and interested to meet aside. > > Yours, > > Alex > > _______________________________________________ > its mailing list > its@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its > --20cf3011de256507c20504d4ad35 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't mind that as I prefer that ITS-BoF for future IETF meetings= which are outside North America. IMHO this group has more interest project= s=C2=A0in Europe or Asia.=C2=A0

AB

On Tues= day, October 7, 2014, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Hello,

For your information, there will be no BoF in Honolul for geonet/its.

Since Toronto, we have discussed several alternative paths to pursue with g= eonet/its; one potential path with strong support from a relevant oranizati= on was to BoF.=C2=A0 However, after measuring several metrics we decided to= not request BoF in Honolulu.

I will be in Honolulu and interested to meet aside.

Yours,

Alex

_______________________________________________
its mailing list
its@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
--20cf3011de256507c20504d4ad35-- From nobody Wed Oct 22 05:57:29 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DB851A910B for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 05:57:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.283 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.283 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CPCjoQTo9t1E for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 05:57:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E987B1A9105 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 05:57:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id s9MCvHNq017863; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:57:17 +0200 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 5AA1E2084F2; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:58:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44C79200B50; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:58:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.84.104]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id s9MCuqWE016900; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:57:17 +0200 Message-ID: <5447A993.2030506@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:56:51 +0200 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "its@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/5vNlOcvSwZ9dx4XGkflE34v1mH0 Cc: dimitri papadimitriou Subject: [geonet/its] moving on with geonet/its activities - an RG X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "GeoNet BoF discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 12:57:27 -0000 Dear participants to geonet/its, You may have noticed an activity slowdown on the email list. We are considering moving some if not all technical intentions of this list to a Research Group (RG) of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). This will prove effective in freely maturing technical topics prior to tackling some in a more focused way. But applying for a Research Group requires dedicated work - if you are interested in helping please contact Dimitri and copy me. Dimitri tries to bring together a set of topics of interest towards building such group. Yours, Alex From nobody Fri Oct 24 08:16:54 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBAC01A1A69 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:16:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.084 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.084 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kioFXjh4YJYk for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:16:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA3081A1A57 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:16:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id s9OFGdq2032287 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:16:39 +0200 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id F2065209116 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:18:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF89220910B for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:18:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id s9OFGVti019455 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:16:38 +0200 Message-ID: <544A6D4F.3060401@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:16:31 +0200 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "its@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/dra3Yc_axZSolJuV7YwBEnMuqPg Subject: [geonet/its] FYI - ETSI ITS - work on cooperative cruise control, platooning X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "GeoNet BoF discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 15:16:47 -0000 Hello geonet/itsers, ETSI ITS group is an SDO in Europe. They produced many standards in the past for vehicular communications, e.g. ETSI ITS geo-networking among others. ETSI ITS recently agreed to start working on pre-standardization items called "Cooperative Cruise Control" and "Platooning". These two applications make automobiles (and trucks) talk to each other continuously to keep speed constant. It helps relieve automobile driver stress in jam situation or reduce gas consumption by 'platooning'. Currently the focus is on requirements including communication requirements. In my oppinion, and this is why I forward it to this group, establishing direct IP connections between vehicles may open paths for exchanging IP data containing speed/location and trigger a control process of adapting the speed. One already controls vehicles by sending IP data to them, from the infrastructure. It would be a simple matter for IP experts to send that same data from other vehicle, without going to the infrastructure. Thoughts? Yours, Alex From nobody Fri Oct 24 16:45:07 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C67B61A1ACA for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:45:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.578 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FaZ2ItbuJ3u3 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:45:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na3sys009aog128.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog128.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E0191A1A5D for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com ([209.85.215.44]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob128.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKVErkfmbBDnz6yQtVnNd0XIoK95plo5D2@postini.com; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:45:03 PDT Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id hs14so3442167lab.31 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:45:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=bqbiVzENHM3jKlxQXuJBzr+WstZJO5pTdD88TsNjXxQ=; b=GefK4vz3XKL7zj8H+rSTjJw2AWw2k3Y7yiOyESw8lII3cUP0/BJCqHaJUL8xVSlRy9 HdXm/53vRAfRDX+XNXEFCdAdu7TvTw0qMp1+SGsXSSs7XwonyDyohNERIptdlxs6BSCQ 4ARUvIk/CdE/jcyJX14oxKLqG8l8NazYOjHia7obsRCqhnRx/O77xhNtDqVagCpSDZUD hUMoahzuZL35AHajN9SH8YMCFtL8Nab6gdDl1hua85fd+1sfTzo4csIMX0wV/7pKQv5J JhJ+kq0GWeNnda+fJBYNrbbTnkRGWipsIYplmYEoG5jgwEkoxRgtfhyP27yDXXcL08PG 8seg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlyIaDdL+YV9E3LFxS/fvcwpIVzL87CAjZKokXAK3C7CR0Y5W6OTaUXlGjrDI5usZ5RNNGnuqIx7DOF4tu4+ejWaopL1Ypgd+lry0aZcvEBei1LieLBqvwZ0JYmOX4jthm16W4z X-Received: by 10.112.134.39 with SMTP id ph7mr7535243lbb.45.1414194301086; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:45:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.134.39 with SMTP id ph7mr7535234lbb.45.1414194300988; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:45:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.18.15 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:45:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <544A6D4F.3060401@gmail.com> References: <544A6D4F.3060401@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:45:00 -0700 Message-ID: From: John Kenney To: Alexandru Petrescu Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b344184f443c0050633c4b8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/Jkz9o54_3siurvb1KqyyDG52Rco Cc: "its@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [geonet/its] FYI - ETSI ITS - work on cooperative cruise control, platooning X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "GeoNet BoF discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 23:45:05 -0000 --047d7b344184f443c0050633c4b8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Alex, Thanks for sharing this. I think many of us in the DSRC/Cooperative ITS community consider these two applications to be a very natural fit for the technology. Furthermore, my expectation is that the applications can work well with one-hop V2V communication of the type that does not typically use IP. So, I don't see a benefit of including IP. That doesn't mean it wouldn't work, but as you know the DSRC community generally plans to use a lighter weight protocol, WSMP, for applications that do not need IP. I expect ETSI will think along similar lines. Best Regards, John -- John Kenney Principal Researcher Toyota InfoTechnology Center, USA 465 Bernardo Avenue Mountain View, CA 94043 Tel: 650-694-4160. Mobile: 650-224-6644 On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Alexandru Petrescu < alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello geonet/itsers, > > ETSI ITS group is an SDO in Europe. They produced many standards in the > past for vehicular communications, e.g. ETSI ITS geo-networking among > others. > > ETSI ITS recently agreed to start working on pre-standardization items > called "Cooperative Cruise Control" and "Platooning". These two > applications make automobiles (and trucks) talk to each other continuously > to keep speed constant. It helps relieve automobile driver stress in jam > situation or reduce gas consumption by 'platooning'. > > Currently the focus is on requirements including communication > requirements. > > In my oppinion, and this is why I forward it to this group, establishing > direct IP connections between vehicles may open paths for exchanging IP > data containing speed/location and trigger a control process of adapting > the speed. One already controls vehicles by sending IP data to them, from > the infrastructure. It would be a simple matter for IP experts to send > that same data from other vehicle, without going to the infrastructure. > > Thoughts? > > Yours, > > Alex > > _______________________________________________ > its mailing list > its@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its > --047d7b344184f443c0050633c4b8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Alex,
Thanks for sharing this.

I think many of us in the DSRC/Cooperative ITS community co= nsider these two applications to be a very natural fit for the technology.= =C2=A0 Furthermore, my expectation is that the applications can work well w= ith one-hop V2V communication of the type that does not typically use IP.= =C2=A0 So, I don't see a benefit of including IP.=C2=A0 That doesn'= t mean it wouldn't work, but as you know the DSRC community generally p= lans to use a lighter weight protocol, WSMP, for applications that do not n= eed IP.=C2=A0 I expect ETSI will think along similar lines.

<= /div>
Best Regards,
John

--
John Kenney
Principal Researcher
Toyota InfoTechnology Center, USA
465 Bernardo Avenue
= Mountain View, CA 94043
Tel: 650-694-4160. Mobile: 650-224-6644

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:16 = AM, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello geonet/itsers,

ETSI ITS group is an SDO in Europe.=C2=A0 They produced many standards in t= he past for vehicular communications, e.g. ETSI ITS geo-networking among ot= hers.

ETSI ITS recently agreed to start working on pre-standardization items call= ed "Cooperative Cruise Control" and "Platooning".=C2=A0= These two applications make automobiles (and trucks) talk to each other co= ntinuously to keep speed constant.=C2=A0 It helps relieve automobile driver= stress in jam situation or reduce gas consumption by 'platooning'.=

Currently the focus is on requirements including communication requirements= .

In my oppinion, and this is why I forward it to this group, establishing di= rect IP connections between vehicles may open paths for exchanging IP data = containing speed/location and trigger a control process of adapting the spe= ed.=C2=A0 One already controls vehicles by sending IP data to them, from th= e infrastructure.=C2=A0 It would be a simple matter for IP experts to send = that same data from other vehicle, without going to the infrastructure.

Thoughts?

Yours,

Alex

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




--047d7b344184f443c0050633c4b8-- From nobody Fri Oct 24 16:49:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 493201A1ACA for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:49:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jvzr8jIkMb-9 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:49:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x22b.google.com (mail-pd0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 812561A0636 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:49:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f171.google.com with SMTP id r10so2284540pdi.30 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:49:34 -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 :message-id:references:to; bh=kyGP2kjCDQidugPBZprOCU13M/pzlKgAy0PSLNsM4CM=; b=YwkoV79s6dTPNDZeIN6HcNKHSvp/iXeiUIIrqBJmrugsYwO6eHxc9XtJ6Pxrkvk7is mYnwZ75Y0vwERLV35+qahEwnF6UElgadAR7SJHQ07NEegPheJXfCmribftrjO4sCAZ71 hrk18/vk5Ck0yEtzLYLm8HMgIj0xGqKBi9y3k+DDKAMS/TyddBM4ObZu8iqfQW/ioUao W5xNg8JNHU78tGeQXTekqXO2qD0U9ZLUFY6K46oIWWbJf/I13yGZR21lUqoH8D6C7NOJ RFSpF74lz4ukf74iDe2CuJw22cKE9UW3yAW40lZdMQ09bGEsRlw4wX7HptoDIz5bSsNE s8dg== X-Received: by 10.68.98.99 with SMTP id eh3mr8006381pbb.64.1414194574158; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:49:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.5] ([121.152.87.242]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id uw1sm4827531pab.30.2014.10.24.16.49.32 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:49:33 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0E3B4BAC-607E-4369-9585-A083BE95F7E8" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\)) From: Jong-Hyouk Lee In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 08:49:31 +0900 Message-Id: References: <544A6D4F.3060401@gmail.com> To: John Kenney X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/0ZprS2mCJOxG8rDYqf02kCNElZs Cc: Alexandru Petrescu , "its@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [geonet/its] FYI - ETSI ITS - work on cooperative cruise control, platooning X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "GeoNet BoF discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 23:49:46 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_0E3B4BAC-607E-4369-9585-A083BE95F7E8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random Protocol Engineering Lab., Sangmyung University #email: jonghyouk@gmail.com #webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon > On Oct 25, 2014, at 8:45 AM, John Kenney = wrote: >=20 > Hi Alex, > Thanks for sharing this. >=20 > I think many of us in the DSRC/Cooperative ITS community consider = these two applications to be a very natural fit for the technology. = Furthermore, my expectation is that the applications can work well with = one-hop V2V communication of the type that does not typically use IP. = So, I don't see a benefit of including IP. That doesn't mean it = wouldn't work, but as you know the DSRC community generally plans to use = a lighter weight protocol, WSMP, for applications that do not need IP. = I expect ETSI will think along similar lines. +1 >=20 > Best Regards, > John >=20 > --=20 > John Kenney > Principal Researcher > Toyota InfoTechnology Center, USA > 465 Bernardo Avenue > Mountain View, CA 94043 > Tel: 650-694-4160. Mobile: 650-224-6644 >=20 > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Alexandru Petrescu = > = wrote: > Hello geonet/itsers, >=20 > ETSI ITS group is an SDO in Europe. They produced many standards in = the past for vehicular communications, e.g. ETSI ITS geo-networking = among others. >=20 > ETSI ITS recently agreed to start working on pre-standardization items = called "Cooperative Cruise Control" and "Platooning". These two = applications make automobiles (and trucks) talk to each other = continuously to keep speed constant. It helps relieve automobile driver = stress in jam situation or reduce gas consumption by 'platooning'. >=20 > Currently the focus is on requirements including communication = requirements. >=20 > In my oppinion, and this is why I forward it to this group, = establishing direct IP connections between vehicles may open paths for = exchanging IP data containing speed/location and trigger a control = process of adapting the speed. One already controls vehicles by sending = IP data to them, from the infrastructure. It would be a simple matter = for IP experts to send that same data from other vehicle, without going = to the infrastructure. >=20 > Thoughts? >=20 > Yours, >=20 > Alex >=20 > _______________________________________________ > its mailing list > its@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its = >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > its mailing list > its@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its --Apple-Mail=_0E3B4BAC-607E-4369-9585-A083BE95F7E8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
--
Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null = and /dev/random
Protocol Engineering Lab., = Sangmyung University

#email: jonghyouk@gmail.com
#webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon

On Oct 25, 2014, at 8:45 AM, John Kenney <jkenney@US.TOYOTA-ITC.COM> wrote:

Hi Alex,
Thanks for = sharing this.

I = think many of us in the DSRC/Cooperative ITS community consider these = two applications to be a very natural fit for the technology.  = Furthermore, my expectation is that the applications can work well with = one-hop V2V communication of the type that does not typically use = IP.  So, I don't see a benefit of including IP.  That doesn't = mean it wouldn't work, but as you know the DSRC community generally = plans to use a lighter weight protocol, WSMP, for applications that do = not need IP.  I expect ETSI will think along similar = lines.

+1

Best Regards,
John

--
John = Kenney
Principal Researcher
Toyota InfoTechnology Center, USA
465 = Bernardo Avenue
Mountain View, CA 94043
Tel: 650-694-4160. Mobile: 650-224-6644

On Fri, Oct = 24, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> = wrote:
Hello geonet/itsers,

ETSI ITS group is an SDO in Europe.  They produced many standards = in the past for vehicular communications, e.g. ETSI ITS geo-networking = among others.

ETSI ITS recently agreed to start working on pre-standardization items = called "Cooperative Cruise Control" and "Platooning".  These two = applications make automobiles (and trucks) talk to each other = continuously to keep speed constant.  It helps relieve automobile = driver stress in jam situation or reduce gas consumption by = 'platooning'.

Currently the focus is on requirements including communication = requirements.

In my oppinion, and this is why I forward it to this group, establishing = direct IP connections between vehicles may open paths for exchanging IP = data containing speed/location and trigger a control process of adapting = the speed.  One already controls vehicles by sending IP data to = them, from the infrastructure.  It would be a simple matter for IP = experts to send that same data from other vehicle, without going to the = infrastructure.

Thoughts?

Yours,

Alex

_______________________________________________
its mailing list
its@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its




_______________________________________________
its = mailing list
its@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

= --Apple-Mail=_0E3B4BAC-607E-4369-9585-A083BE95F7E8-- From nobody Sat Oct 25 15:56:05 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B3BC1A1C04 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 15:56:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.16 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.16 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QSGs0eCmDkAl for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 15:56:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zproxy220.enst-bretagne.fr (zproxy220.enst-bretagne.fr [192.108.117.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A43821A1ABE for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 15:56:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zproxy220.enst-bretagne.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1340302A5; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 00:55:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from zproxy220.enst-bretagne.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zproxy220.enst-bretagne.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id pHmdx5NQq5ZI; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 00:55:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zproxy220.enst-bretagne.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45AFF302AC; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 00:55:56 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zproxy220.enst-bretagne.fr Received: from zproxy220.enst-bretagne.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zproxy220.enst-bretagne.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id B6Xky6HOyz1C; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 00:55:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from volcanix.lan (S0106c8be19753ff9.vc.shawcable.net [24.85.82.7]) by zproxy220.enst-bretagne.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 13C04302A5; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 00:55:52 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\)) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C1746FF6-3333-4DF9-9646-3DBA41A9588A" From: Jean-Marie BONNIN In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 00:53:15 +0200 Message-Id: <9D7DB8FB-FC07-4CB6-A83C-BCED4E1B9E03@telecom-bretagne.eu> References: <544A6D4F.3060401@gmail.com> To: John Kenney X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/dgn9qmb4LtN-cTrM89syBscGf2w Cc: Alexandru Petrescu , Jong-Hyouk Lee , "its@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [geonet/its] FYI - ETSI ITS - work on cooperative cruise control, platooning X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "GeoNet BoF discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 22:56:03 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_C1746FF6-3333-4DF9-9646-3DBA41A9588A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > Le 25 oct. 2014 =C3=A0 01:49, Jong-Hyouk Lee a = =C3=A9crit : >=20 >=20 > -- > Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random > Protocol Engineering Lab., Sangmyung University >=20 > #email: jonghyouk@gmail.com > #webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon = >> On Oct 25, 2014, at 8:45 AM, John Kenney > wrote: >>=20 >> Hi Alex, >> Thanks for sharing this. >>=20 >> I think many of us in the DSRC/Cooperative ITS community consider = these two applications to be a very natural fit for the technology. = Furthermore, my expectation is that the applications can work well with = one-hop V2V communication of the type that does not typically use IP. = So, I don't see a benefit of including IP. That doesn't mean it = wouldn't work, but as you know the DSRC community generally plans to use = a lighter weight protocol, WSMP, for applications that do not need IP. = I expect ETSI will think along similar lines. >=20 > +1 Yes you=E2=80=99re probably right.=20 ETSI has planed to standardize these applications over G5 (IEEE = 802.11p), but it could be very interesting to see if we can meet the = requirement using IP instead of CAM messages directly over G5.=20 My understanding is that using only one-hop v2v could be not sufficient = in certain circonstances, when two lines of platooning vehicles have to = merge for example, or more obviously when you have to be forwarded by = the infrastructure to reach the next vehicle. In this last situation, = you could use multi hop geo-routing or have a part of the application = that run in the infrastructure.=20 My 2 =C2=A2 JMB >=20 >>=20 >> Best Regards, >> John >>=20 >> --=20 >> John Kenney >> Principal Researcher >> Toyota InfoTechnology Center, USA >> 465 Bernardo Avenue >> Mountain View, CA 94043 >> Tel: 650-694-4160. Mobile: 650-224-6644 >>=20 >> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Alexandru Petrescu = > = wrote: >> Hello geonet/itsers, >>=20 >> ETSI ITS group is an SDO in Europe. They produced many standards in = the past for vehicular communications, e.g. ETSI ITS geo-networking = among others. >>=20 >> ETSI ITS recently agreed to start working on pre-standardization = items called "Cooperative Cruise Control" and "Platooning". These two = applications make automobiles (and trucks) talk to each other = continuously to keep speed constant. It helps relieve automobile driver = stress in jam situation or reduce gas consumption by 'platooning'. >>=20 >> Currently the focus is on requirements including communication = requirements. >>=20 >> In my oppinion, and this is why I forward it to this group, = establishing direct IP connections between vehicles may open paths for = exchanging IP data containing speed/location and trigger a control = process of adapting the speed. One already controls vehicles by sending = IP data to them, from the infrastructure. It would be a simple matter = for IP experts to send that same data from other vehicle, without going = to the infrastructure. >>=20 >> Thoughts? >>=20 >> Yours, >>=20 >> Alex >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> its mailing list >> its@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its = >>=20 >>=20 >>=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 Jean-Marie BONNIN Professor, Head of RSM dpt IRISA, D2 (Network, Telecommunications & Services) dpt =20 IRISA / UeB Tel. : +33 2 99 12 70 07 - +33 6 60 76 79 76 2, rue de la = Ch=C3=A2taigneraie CS 17607 35576 Cesson S=C3=A9vign=C3=A9, France=20 LinkedIn = RG = --Apple-Mail=_C1746FF6-3333-4DF9-9646-3DBA41A9588A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Le 25 oct. 2014 =C3=A0 01:49, Jong-Hyouk Lee <jonghyouk@gmail.com>= a =C3=A9crit :


--
Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null = and /dev/random
Protocol Engineering Lab., = Sangmyung University

#email: jonghyouk@gmail.com
#webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon

On Oct 25, 2014, at 8:45 AM, John Kenney <jkenney@US.TOYOTA-ITC.COM> wrote:

Hi Alex,
Thanks for = sharing this.

I = think many of us in the DSRC/Cooperative ITS community consider these = two applications to be a very natural fit for the technology.  = Furthermore, my expectation is that the applications can work well with = one-hop V2V communication of the type that does not typically use = IP.  So, I don't see a benefit of including IP.  That doesn't = mean it wouldn't work, but as you know the DSRC community generally = plans to use a lighter weight protocol, WSMP, for applications that do = not need IP.  I expect ETSI will think along similar = lines.

+1

Yes you=E2=80=99re probably = right. 
ETSI has planed to standardize these applications = over G5 (IEEE 802.11p), but it could be very interesting to see if we = can meet the requirement using IP instead of CAM messages directly over = G5. 

My understanding is that = using only one-hop v2v could be not sufficient in certain circonstances, = when two lines of platooning vehicles have to merge for example, or more = obviously when you have to be forwarded by the infrastructure to reach = the next vehicle. In this last situation, you could use multi hop = geo-routing or have a part of the application that run in the = infrastructure. 

My 2 = =C2=A2

JMB



Best Regards,
John

--
John Kenney
Principal = Researcher
Toyota InfoTechnology Center, = USA
465 Bernardo Avenue
Mountain= View, CA 94043
Tel: 650-694-4160. Mobile: = 650-224-6644

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Alexandru = Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello geonet/itsers,

ETSI ITS group is an SDO in Europe.  They produced many standards = in the past for vehicular communications, e.g. ETSI ITS geo-networking = among others.

ETSI ITS recently agreed to start working on pre-standardization items = called "Cooperative Cruise Control" and "Platooning".  These two = applications make automobiles (and trucks) talk to each other = continuously to keep speed constant.  It helps relieve automobile = driver stress in jam situation or reduce gas consumption by = 'platooning'.

Currently the focus is on requirements including communication = requirements.

In my oppinion, and this is why I forward it to this group, establishing = direct IP connections between vehicles may open paths for exchanging IP = data containing speed/location and trigger a control process of adapting = the speed.  One already controls vehicles by sending IP data to = them, from the infrastructure.  It would be a simple matter for IP = experts to send that same data from other vehicle, without going to the = infrastructure.

Thoughts?

Yours,

Alex

_______________________________________________
its mailing list
its@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its




_______________________________________________
its = mailing list
its@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

_______________________________________________
its mailing list
its@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its


3D"T=E5=9B=9B=E6=AE=8B= Jean-Marie BONNIN
= Professor, Head of RSM dpt
IRISA, D2 (Network, Telecommunications & Services) = dpt    
IRISA / UeB
Tel. : +33 2 99 12 70 07 - +33 6 60 76 79 76		 2, rue de la Ch=C3=A2taigneraie
CS 17607
35576 Cesson S=C3=A9vign=C3=A9, France =
3D"Site LinkedIn RG

= --Apple-Mail=_C1746FF6-3333-4DF9-9646-3DBA41A9588A-- From nobody Mon Oct 27 04:22:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 886621A90B6 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 04:22:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.151 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.151 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0AuzkBV_n3o6 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 04:22:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from radmz1.prettl-elektronik.de (radmz1.prettl-elektronik.de [212.185.50.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1C9A1A90B4 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 04:22:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rasrv02.prettl-elektronik.de ([10.76.0.20]:57335) by utm.prettl-electronics.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from ) id 1XiiN7-0004Xx-0B; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:22:01 +0100 Received: from RASRV50.prettl-elektronik.de ([10.76.0.50]) by RASRV02.prettl-elektronik.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:22:00 +0100 Received: from RASRV50.prettl-elektronik.de ([::1]) by RASRV50.prettl-elektronik.de ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:22:00 +0100 From: "Varadi , Andras (lesswire AG Ungarn)" To: John Kenney , Alexandru Petrescu Thread-Topic: [geonet/its] FYI - ETSI ITS - work on cooperative cruise control, platooning Thread-Index: AQHP7+SSZKDG4hUwvE6JDr22K7bXSZxDy5aw Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 11:22:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: <544A6D4F.3060401@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.74.100.61] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_ED899A19E313D540BE9D122C2B81599A028F6DRASRV50prettlelek_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Oct 2014 11:22:00.0973 (UTC) FILETIME=[3A42F3D0:01CFF1D8] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/C-qv9eu9_9fDRWrcEMqAJlLwjfc Cc: "its@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [geonet/its] FYI - ETSI ITS - work on cooperative cruise control, platooning X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "GeoNet BoF discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 11:22:07 -0000 --_000_ED899A19E313D540BE9D122C2B81599A028F6DRASRV50prettlelek_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 RGVhciBBbGV4LCBKb2huDQoNCkkgYWdyZWUgd2l0aCBKb2huLCBidXQgd291bGQgbGlrZSB0byBw b2ludCBvdXQgdGhhdCBJIHRoaW5rIGl0cyBsaWtlbHkgdGhhdCB3ZSB3aWxsIG5lZWQgdG8gZXh0 ZW5kIEVVIEdlb25ldHdvcmtpbmcgKEVOIDMwMiA2MzYpIHRvIHdvcmsgb3ZlciBJUCAoZS5nLiBM VEUpIGxpbmtzIGFsc28uDQpJIHRoaW5rIHdlIHdpbGwgaGF2ZSBzdWNoIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyBm b3IgRVUgRGF5MiBvciAzICgybmQsIFRoaXJkIGdlbmVyYXRpb24gQy1JVFMpIChleGFtcGxlOiB1 cGRhdGUgb3VyIExvY2FsIER5bmFtaWMgTWFwIHdpdGggYSBuZXcgV2FybmluZyBtZXNzYWdlIHJl Y2VpdmVkIG92ZXIgY2VsbHVsYXIgY29ubmVjdGlvbiAobm90IEc1LzExcCkpDQoNCsOcZHbDtnps ZXR0ZWwgLyBCZXN0IHJlZ2FyZHMsDQogICBBbmRyw6FzIFbDoXJhZGkNCg0KICAgICBQcm9qZWN0 IE1hbmFnZXIg4oCTIEMyWC9JVFMgU3lzdGVtcw0KDQogICAgIEF1dG9tb3RpdmUgJiBXTEFOIEdy b3VwDQogICAgIGxlc3N3aXJlICAgSHVuZ2FyeSB8IE9mZmljZTogKzM2IDIzNTIxIDY2NyB8IEVt YWlsOiBWYXJhZGlAbGVzc3dpcmUuY29tPG1haWx0bzpWYXJhZGlAbGVzc3dpcmUuY29tPg0KDQpG cm9tOiBpdHMgW21haWx0bzppdHMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIEpvaG4g S2VubmV5DQpTZW50OiBTYXR1cmRheSwgT2N0b2JlciAyNSwgMjAxNCAxOjQ1IEFNDQpUbzogQWxl eGFuZHJ1IFBldHJlc2N1DQpDYzogaXRzQGlldGYub3JnDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW2dlb25ldC9p dHNdIEZZSSAtIEVUU0kgSVRTIC0gd29yayBvbiBjb29wZXJhdGl2ZSBjcnVpc2UgY29udHJvbCwg cGxhdG9vbmluZw0KDQpIaSBBbGV4LA0KVGhhbmtzIGZvciBzaGFyaW5nIHRoaXMuDQoNCkkgdGhp bmsgbWFueSBvZiB1cyBpbiB0aGUgRFNSQy9Db29wZXJhdGl2ZSBJVFMgY29tbXVuaXR5IGNvbnNp ZGVyIHRoZXNlIHR3byBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbnMgdG8gYmUgYSB2ZXJ5IG5hdHVyYWwgZml0IGZvciB0 aGUgdGVjaG5vbG9neS4gIEZ1cnRoZXJtb3JlLCBteSBleHBlY3RhdGlvbiBpcyB0aGF0IHRoZSBh cHBsaWNhdGlvbnMgY2FuIHdvcmsgd2VsbCB3aXRoIG9uZS1ob3AgVjJWIGNvbW11bmljYXRpb24g b2YgdGhlIHR5cGUgdGhhdCBkb2VzIG5vdCB0eXBpY2FsbHkgdXNlIElQLiAgU28sIEkgZG9uJ3Qg c2VlIGEgYmVuZWZpdCBvZiBpbmNsdWRpbmcgSVAuICBUaGF0IGRvZXNuJ3QgbWVhbiBpdCB3b3Vs ZG4ndCB3b3JrLCBidXQgYXMgeW91IGtub3cgdGhlIERTUkMgY29tbXVuaXR5IGdlbmVyYWxseSBw bGFucyB0byB1c2UgYSBsaWdodGVyIHdlaWdodCBwcm90b2NvbCwgV1NNUCwgZm9yIGFwcGxpY2F0 aW9ucyB0aGF0IGRvIG5vdCBuZWVkIElQLiAgSSBleHBlY3QgRVRTSSB3aWxsIHRoaW5rIGFsb25n IHNpbWlsYXIgbGluZXMuDQoNCkJlc3QgUmVnYXJkcywNCkpvaG4NCg0KLS0NCkpvaG4gS2VubmV5 DQpQcmluY2lwYWwgUmVzZWFyY2hlcg0KVG95b3RhIEluZm9UZWNobm9sb2d5IENlbnRlciwgVVNB DQo0NjUgQmVybmFyZG8gQXZlbnVlDQpNb3VudGFpbiBWaWV3LCBDQSA5NDA0Mw0KVGVsOiA2NTAt Njk0LTQxNjAuIE1vYmlsZTogNjUwLTIyNC02NjQ0DQoNCk9uIEZyaSwgT2N0IDI0LCAyMDE0IGF0 IDg6MTYgQU0sIEFsZXhhbmRydSBQZXRyZXNjdSA8YWxleGFuZHJ1LnBldHJlc2N1QGdtYWlsLmNv bTxtYWlsdG86YWxleGFuZHJ1LnBldHJlc2N1QGdtYWlsLmNvbT4+IHdyb3RlOg0KSGVsbG8gZ2Vv bmV0L2l0c2VycywNCg0KRVRTSSBJVFMgZ3JvdXAgaXMgYW4gU0RPIGluIEV1cm9wZS4gIFRoZXkg cHJvZHVjZWQgbWFueSBzdGFuZGFyZHMgaW4gdGhlIHBhc3QgZm9yIHZlaGljdWxhciBjb21tdW5p Y2F0aW9ucywgZS5nLiBFVFNJIElUUyBnZW8tbmV0d29ya2luZyBhbW9uZyBvdGhlcnMuDQoNCkVU U0kgSVRTIHJlY2VudGx5IGFncmVlZCB0byBzdGFydCB3b3JraW5nIG9uIHByZS1zdGFuZGFyZGl6 YXRpb24gaXRlbXMgY2FsbGVkICJDb29wZXJhdGl2ZSBDcnVpc2UgQ29udHJvbCIgYW5kICJQbGF0 b29uaW5nIi4gIFRoZXNlIHR3byBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbnMgbWFrZSBhdXRvbW9iaWxlcyAoYW5kIHRy dWNrcykgdGFsayB0byBlYWNoIG90aGVyIGNvbnRpbnVvdXNseSB0byBrZWVwIHNwZWVkIGNvbnN0 YW50LiAgSXQgaGVscHMgcmVsaWV2ZSBhdXRvbW9iaWxlIGRyaXZlciBzdHJlc3MgaW4gamFtIHNp dHVhdGlvbiBvciByZWR1Y2UgZ2FzIGNvbnN1bXB0aW9uIGJ5ICdwbGF0b29uaW5nJy4NCg0KQ3Vy cmVudGx5IHRoZSBmb2N1cyBpcyBvbiByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgaW5jbHVkaW5nIGNvbW11bmljYXRp b24gcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzLg0KDQpJbiBteSBvcHBpbmlvbiwgYW5kIHRoaXMgaXMgd2h5IEkgZm9y d2FyZCBpdCB0byB0aGlzIGdyb3VwLCBlc3RhYmxpc2hpbmcgZGlyZWN0IElQIGNvbm5lY3Rpb25z IGJldHdlZW4gdmVoaWNsZXMgbWF5IG9wZW4gcGF0aHMgZm9yIGV4Y2hhbmdpbmcgSVAgZGF0YSBj b250YWluaW5nIHNwZWVkL2xvY2F0aW9uIGFuZCB0cmlnZ2VyIGEgY29udHJvbCBwcm9jZXNzIG9m IGFkYXB0aW5nIHRoZSBzcGVlZC4gIE9uZSBhbHJlYWR5IGNvbnRyb2xzIHZlaGljbGVzIGJ5IHNl bmRpbmcgSVAgZGF0YSB0byB0aGVtLCBmcm9tIHRoZSBpbmZyYXN0cnVjdHVyZS4gIEl0IHdvdWxk IGJlIGEgc2ltcGxlIG1hdHRlciBmb3IgSVAgZXhwZXJ0cyB0byBzZW5kIHRoYXQgc2FtZSBkYXRh IGZyb20gb3RoZXIgdmVoaWNsZSwgd2l0aG91dCBnb2luZyB0byB0aGUgaW5mcmFzdHJ1Y3R1cmUu DQoNClRob3VnaHRzPw0KDQpZb3VycywNCg0KQWxleA0KDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KaXRzIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KaXRzQGlldGYub3Jn PG1haWx0bzppdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmc+DQpodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3Rp bmZvL2l0cw0KDQoNCg0K --_000_ED899A19E313D540BE9D122C2B81599A028F6DRASRV50prettlelek_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIg Y29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9IkdlbmVyYXRv ciIgY29udGVudD0iTWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgMTQgKGZpbHRlcmVkIG1lZGl1bSkiPg0KPHN0eWxl PjwhLS0NCi8qIEZvbnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 U2ltU3VuOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjIgMSA2IDAgMyAxIDEgMSAxIDE7fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtm b250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FtYnJpYSBNYXRoIjsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDQgNSAzIDUgNCA2IDMgMiA0 O30NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDE1IDUg MiAyIDIgNCAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OlRhaG9tYTsNCglwYW5v c2UtMToyIDExIDYgNCAzIDUgNCA0IDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJc QFNpbVN1biI7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiAxIDYgMCAzIDEgMSAxIDEgMTt9DQovKiBTdHlsZSBEZWZp bml0aW9ucyAqLw0KcC5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGxpLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgZGl2Lk1zb05vcm1hbA0KCXtt YXJnaW46MGNtOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0K CWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iLCJzZXJpZiI7fQ0KYTpsaW5rLCBzcGFuLk1z b0h5cGVybGluaw0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6Ymx1ZTsNCgl0ZXh0 LWRlY29yYXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5lO30NCmE6dmlzaXRlZCwgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmtGb2xs b3dlZA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6cHVycGxlOw0KCXRleHQtZGVj b3JhdGlvbjp1bmRlcmxpbmU7fQ0Kc3Bhbi5FbWFpbFN0eWxlMTcNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6 cGVyc29uYWwtcmVwbHk7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjsNCglj b2xvcjojMTczRkM2O30NCi5Nc29DaHBEZWZhdWx0DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOmV4cG9ydC1v bmx5Ow0KCW1zby1mYXJlYXN0LWxhbmd1YWdlOkVOLVVTO30NCkBwYWdlIFdvcmRTZWN0aW9uMQ0K CXtzaXplOjYxMi4wcHQgNzkyLjBwdDsNCgltYXJnaW46NzAuODVwdCA3MC44NXB0IDcwLjg1cHQg NzAuODVwdDt9DQpkaXYuV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJe3BhZ2U6V29yZFNlY3Rpb24xO30NCi0tPjwv c3R5bGU+PCEtLVtpZiBndGUgbXNvIDldPjx4bWw+DQo8bzpzaGFwZWRlZmF1bHRzIHY6ZXh0PSJl ZGl0IiBzcGlkbWF4PSIxMDI2IiAvPg0KPC94bWw+PCFbZW5kaWZdLS0+PCEtLVtpZiBndGUgbXNv IDldPjx4bWw+DQo8bzpzaGFwZWxheW91dCB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCI+DQo8bzppZG1hcCB2OmV4dD0i ZWRpdCIgZGF0YT0iMSIgLz4NCjwvbzpzaGFwZWxheW91dD48L3htbD48IVtlbmRpZl0tLT4NCjwv aGVhZD4NCjxib2R5IGxhbmc9IkhVIiBsaW5rPSJibHVlIiB2bGluaz0icHVycGxlIj4NCjxkaXYg Y2xhc3M9IldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMSI+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0i Zm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3Nh bnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6IzE3M0ZDNiI+RGVhciBBbGV4LCBKb2huPG86cD48L286cD48 L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZTox MS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1 b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMxNzNGQzYiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNz PSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtm b250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29s b3I6IzE3M0ZDNiI+SSBhZ3JlZSB3aXRoIEpvaG4sIGJ1dCB3b3VsZCBsaWtlIHRvIHBvaW50IG91 dCB0aGF0IEkgdGhpbmsgaXRzIGxpa2VseSB0aGF0IHdlIHdpbGwgbmVlZCB0byBleHRlbmQgRVUg R2VvbmV0d29ya2luZyAoRU4gMzAyIDYzNikgdG8gd29yayBvdmVyIElQDQogKGUuZy4gTFRFKSBs aW5rcyBhbHNvLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxz cGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVv dDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6IzE3M0ZDNiI+SSB0 aGluayB3ZSB3aWxsIGhhdmUgc3VjaCByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgZm9yIEVVIERheTIgb3IgMyAoMjxz dXA+bmQ8L3N1cD4sIFRoaXJkIGdlbmVyYXRpb24gQy1JVFMpIChleGFtcGxlOiB1cGRhdGUgb3Vy IExvY2FsIER5bmFtaWMgTWFwIHdpdGggYQ0KIG5ldyBXYXJuaW5nIG1lc3NhZ2UgcmVjZWl2ZWQg b3ZlciBjZWxsdWxhciBjb25uZWN0aW9uIChub3QgRzUvMTFwKSk8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48 L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtm b250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29s b3I6IzE3M0ZDNiI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05v cm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMTcz RkM2Ij7DnGR2w7Z6bGV0dGVsIC8gQmVzdCByZWdhcmRzLDxicj4NCiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyBBbmRy w6FzIFbDoXJhZGk8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48 c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZTo4LjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVv dDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6IzE3M0ZDNiI+PG86 cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFu Zz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6OS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJy aSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMxNzNGQzYiPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNw OyZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDtQcm9qZWN0IE1hbmFnZXIg4oCTIEMyWC9JVFMgU3lzdGVtczxicj4NCjxi cj4NCjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxh bmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjguMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGli cmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMTczRkM2Ij4mbmJzcDsmbmJz cDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgQXV0b21vdGl2ZSAmYW1wOyBXTEFOIEdyb3VwDQo8YnI+DQombmJzcDsm bmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1z aXplOjEzLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtBcmlhbCZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlm JnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMxNzNGQzYiPmxlc3N3aXJlJm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7DQo8L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4g bGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6OC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2Fs aWJyaSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMxNzNGQzYiPkh1bmdhcnk8 L3NwYW4+PGI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTMuNXB0O2ZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjoj MTczRkM2Ij4NCjwvc3Bhbj48L2I+PGI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNp emU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJp ZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMTczRkM2Ij58PC9zcGFuPjwvYj48Yj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIg c3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90Oywm cXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMxNzNGQzYiPg0KPC9zcGFuPjwvYj48c3BhbiBs YW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZTo4LjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxp YnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6IzE3M0ZDNiI+T2ZmaWNlOiAm IzQzOzM2IDIzNTIxIDY2Nzwvc3Bhbj48Yj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQt c2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNl cmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMxNzNGQzYiPg0KPC9zcGFuPjwvYj48Yj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1V UyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90 OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMxNzNGQzYiPnw8L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxiPjxz cGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEzLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVv dDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6IzE3M0ZDNiI+DQo8 L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjguMHB0O2ZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjoj MTczRkM2Ij5FbWFpbDoNCjxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpWYXJhZGlAbGVzc3dpcmUuY29tIj48c3Bh biBzdHlsZT0iY29sb3I6IzE3M0ZDNiI+VmFyYWRpQGxlc3N3aXJlLmNvbTwvc3Bhbj48L2E+PC9z cGFuPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjQuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5 OiZxdW90O0FyaWFsJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6IzE3M0ZDNiI+ DQo8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNw OzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBz dHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtUYWhvbWEmcXVvdDssJnF1 b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90OyI+RnJvbTo8L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBz dHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtUYWhvbWEmcXVvdDssJnF1 b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90OyI+IGl0cyBbbWFpbHRvOml0cy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXQ0K PGI+T24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIDwvYj5Kb2huIEtlbm5leTxicj4NCjxiPlNlbnQ6PC9iPiBTYXR1cmRh eSwgT2N0b2JlciAyNSwgMjAxNCAxOjQ1IEFNPGJyPg0KPGI+VG86PC9iPiBBbGV4YW5kcnUgUGV0 cmVzY3U8YnI+DQo8Yj5DYzo8L2I+IGl0c0BpZXRmLm9yZzxicj4NCjxiPlN1YmplY3Q6PC9iPiBS ZTogW2dlb25ldC9pdHNdIEZZSSAtIEVUU0kgSVRTIC0gd29yayBvbiBjb29wZXJhdGl2ZSBjcnVp c2UgY29udHJvbCwgcGxhdG9vbmluZzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJN c29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0i TXNvTm9ybWFsIj5IaSBBbGV4LDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xh c3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+VGhhbmtzIGZvciBzaGFyaW5nIHRoaXMuPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8 L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4N CjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPkkgdGhpbmsgbWFueSBvZiB1cyBp biB0aGUgRFNSQy9Db29wZXJhdGl2ZSBJVFMgY29tbXVuaXR5IGNvbnNpZGVyIHRoZXNlIHR3byBh cHBsaWNhdGlvbnMgdG8gYmUgYSB2ZXJ5IG5hdHVyYWwgZml0IGZvciB0aGUgdGVjaG5vbG9neS4m bmJzcDsgRnVydGhlcm1vcmUsIG15IGV4cGVjdGF0aW9uIGlzIHRoYXQgdGhlIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9u cyBjYW4gd29yayB3ZWxsIHdpdGggb25lLWhvcCBWMlYgY29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBvZg0KIHRoZSB0 eXBlIHRoYXQgZG9lcyBub3QgdHlwaWNhbGx5IHVzZSBJUC4mbmJzcDsgU28sIEkgZG9uJ3Qgc2Vl IGEgYmVuZWZpdCBvZiBpbmNsdWRpbmcgSVAuJm5ic3A7IFRoYXQgZG9lc24ndCBtZWFuIGl0IHdv dWxkbid0IHdvcmssIGJ1dCBhcyB5b3Uga25vdyB0aGUgRFNSQyBjb21tdW5pdHkgZ2VuZXJhbGx5 IHBsYW5zIHRvIHVzZSBhIGxpZ2h0ZXIgd2VpZ2h0IHByb3RvY29sLCBXU01QLCBmb3IgYXBwbGlj YXRpb25zIHRoYXQgZG8gbm90IG5lZWQgSVAuJm5ic3A7IEkgZXhwZWN0DQogRVRTSSB3aWxsIHRo aW5rIGFsb25nIHNpbWlsYXIgbGluZXMuPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8 cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4N CjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPkJlc3QgUmVnYXJkcyw8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2 Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPkpvaG48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2 Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9k aXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+LS0gPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8ZGl2 Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+Sm9obiBLZW5uZXk8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2 Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPlByaW5jaXBhbCBSZXNlYXJjaGVyPG86cD48 L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj5Ub3lvdGEgSW5m b1RlY2hub2xvZ3kgQ2VudGVyLCBVU0E8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxw IGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjQ2NSBCZXJuYXJkbyBBdmVudWU8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwv ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPk1vdW50YWluIFZpZXcsIENBIDk0MDQz PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj5UZWw6 IDY1MC02OTQtNDE2MC4gTW9iaWxlOiA2NTAtMjI0LTY2NDQ8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2 Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9k aXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+T24gRnJpLCBPY3QgMjQsIDIwMTQgYXQg ODoxNiBBTSwgQWxleGFuZHJ1IFBldHJlc2N1ICZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86YWxleGFuZHJ1 LnBldHJlc2N1QGdtYWlsLmNvbSIgdGFyZ2V0PSJfYmxhbmsiPmFsZXhhbmRydS5wZXRyZXNjdUBn bWFpbC5jb208L2E+Jmd0OyB3cm90ZTo8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3Jt YWwiPkhlbGxvIGdlb25ldC9pdHNlcnMsPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KRVRTSSBJVFMgZ3JvdXAgaXMgYW4g U0RPIGluIEV1cm9wZS4mbmJzcDsgVGhleSBwcm9kdWNlZCBtYW55IHN0YW5kYXJkcyBpbiB0aGUg cGFzdCBmb3IgdmVoaWN1bGFyIGNvbW11bmljYXRpb25zLCBlLmcuIEVUU0kgSVRTIGdlby1uZXR3 b3JraW5nIGFtb25nIG90aGVycy48YnI+DQo8YnI+DQpFVFNJIElUUyByZWNlbnRseSBhZ3JlZWQg dG8gc3RhcnQgd29ya2luZyBvbiBwcmUtc3RhbmRhcmRpemF0aW9uIGl0ZW1zIGNhbGxlZCAmcXVv dDtDb29wZXJhdGl2ZSBDcnVpc2UgQ29udHJvbCZxdW90OyBhbmQgJnF1b3Q7UGxhdG9vbmluZyZx dW90Oy4mbmJzcDsgVGhlc2UgdHdvIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9ucyBtYWtlIGF1dG9tb2JpbGVzIChhbmQg dHJ1Y2tzKSB0YWxrIHRvIGVhY2ggb3RoZXIgY29udGludW91c2x5IHRvIGtlZXAgc3BlZWQgY29u c3RhbnQuJm5ic3A7IEl0IGhlbHBzIHJlbGlldmUgYXV0b21vYmlsZQ0KIGRyaXZlciBzdHJlc3Mg aW4gamFtIHNpdHVhdGlvbiBvciByZWR1Y2UgZ2FzIGNvbnN1bXB0aW9uIGJ5ICdwbGF0b29uaW5n Jy48YnI+DQo8YnI+DQpDdXJyZW50bHkgdGhlIGZvY3VzIGlzIG9uIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyBpbmNs dWRpbmcgY29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMuPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KSW4gbXkgb3BwaW5p b24sIGFuZCB0aGlzIGlzIHdoeSBJIGZvcndhcmQgaXQgdG8gdGhpcyBncm91cCwgZXN0YWJsaXNo aW5nIGRpcmVjdCBJUCBjb25uZWN0aW9ucyBiZXR3ZWVuIHZlaGljbGVzIG1heSBvcGVuIHBhdGhz IGZvciBleGNoYW5naW5nIElQIGRhdGEgY29udGFpbmluZyBzcGVlZC9sb2NhdGlvbiBhbmQgdHJp Z2dlciBhIGNvbnRyb2wgcHJvY2VzcyBvZiBhZGFwdGluZyB0aGUgc3BlZWQuJm5ic3A7IE9uZSBh bHJlYWR5IGNvbnRyb2xzIHZlaGljbGVzDQogYnkgc2VuZGluZyBJUCBkYXRhIHRvIHRoZW0sIGZy b20gdGhlIGluZnJhc3RydWN0dXJlLiZuYnNwOyBJdCB3b3VsZCBiZSBhIHNpbXBsZSBtYXR0ZXIg Zm9yIElQIGV4cGVydHMgdG8gc2VuZCB0aGF0IHNhbWUgZGF0YSBmcm9tIG90aGVyIHZlaGljbGUs IHdpdGhvdXQgZ29pbmcgdG8gdGhlIGluZnJhc3RydWN0dXJlLjxicj4NCjxicj4NClRob3VnaHRz Pzxicj4NCjxicj4NCllvdXJzLDxicj4NCjxicj4NCkFsZXg8YnI+DQo8YnI+DQpfX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXzxicj4NCml0cyBtYWlsaW5nIGxp c3Q8YnI+DQo8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86aXRzQGlldGYub3JnIiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+aXRz QGlldGYub3JnPC9hPjxicj4NCjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4v bGlzdGluZm8vaXRzIiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1h bi9saXN0aW5mby9pdHM8L2E+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29O b3JtYWwiPjxicj4NCjxiciBjbGVhcj0iYWxsIj4NCjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxw IGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4N CjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2JvZHk+DQo8L2h0bWw+DQo= --_000_ED899A19E313D540BE9D122C2B81599A028F6DRASRV50prettlelek_-- From nobody Mon Oct 27 05:57:29 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EBDE1ABD38 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 05:57:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.283 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.283 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nznf12aKr1RI for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 05:57:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 947FD1A9239 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 05:57:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id s9RCv9Ob011757; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:57:09 +0100 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id A5486204AEA; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:58:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97DB12099FA; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:58:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id s9RCujEr013657; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:57:09 +0100 Message-ID: <544E410D.9060909@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:56:45 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dickroy@alum.mit.edu, its@ietf.org References: <544A6D4F.3060401@gmail.com> <4C0967C05F214953B400C2ED13E9C67E@SRA4> In-Reply-To: <4C0967C05F214953B400C2ED13E9C67E@SRA4> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/oaJsCODeYoIM_6c0vo0zBPlLexI Subject: Re: [geonet/its] FYI - ETSI ITS - work on cooperative cruise control, platooning X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "GeoNet BoF discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:57:16 -0000 Richard, Le 24/10/2014 22:32, Richard Roy a écrit : > Alex et. al., > > I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "IP data". You are saying it below, but let me expand the abbreviation: IP stands for Internet Protocol and is the networking layer used to bring us this email messsage, for example. IP data is an IP packet carrying data as payload of a transport message, like TCP or UDP. > These two applications, platooning and CACC (Cooperative Adaptive > Cruise Control), are ITS services instantiated by ITS applications > which are in turn instantiated by ITS application processes in ITS > stations. On one hand I doubt that in today's pervasive communication systems connected to the Internet one can still delimit applications exclusively dedicated to one particular domain, for example ITS. On another hand, it is desirable for an application organization to talk exclusively that application, provided we have an unspoken agreement about which term corresponds to real world terms. > They exchange ADUs in performing the service (platooning messages for > the platooning service, and CACC messages for the CACC service). ADU - application data unit? If yes, then an ADU is an IP datagram, right? > How the lower layers accomplish is of little to no consequence to the > service generally, Yes, of little consequence, but their presence is mandatory. In advanced communication systems (flexible, scalable) it is hardly possible to have an application layer running straight on top of a physical layer, for example. A networking layer should be there to help direct the traffic through complex mazes of nodes. > and for these two services, this is surely the case. That is, it is > irrelevant to the service which transport, network, data link, and > physical layer protocols are used. It could be UDP/IP and the T/N > layers, but it could also be UDP/NNTP. I tend to agree with you. The application layer requirements, and the services it should offer, are independent of the underlying layers. However, there is an overarching requirement to first establish IP paths, before allowing applications and services to execute. One possibility to establish these paths are the IP paths. Others may be T/N(?) layers. UDP and NNTP both need IP paths to be established. This is the nice feature of IP paths: once established one can think of many different ways to implement vatious applications: over UDP, over HTTP, or even encapsulated in yet another IP header to give a renewed perspective. > What is interesting about these two services is that they are > generally executed among a "set of vehicles", all > communicating/sharing information among the nodes in the set. Here > the idea of setting up a "group" and adding the concepts of joining > and leaving would seem to make sense. I agree. The sets of vehicles could be described in further detail. What are the indivisble parts of these groups - what are these groups made of? And how to establish IP paths between these? > Perhaps the IP data being referred to is part of this process, i.e., > setting up and managing an IP groupcast address. Either way, it's > important to remember that what ETSI TC ITS (in conjunction with SAE > by the way) is doing deals with ITS application processes, not with > the layers of the comm stack used to exchange the ADUs. If the IETF > perceives that there are elements missing in the IP specs that would > be required to implement these services, it would seem appropriate to > address them in the IETF. Well that is good to hear. If the ETSI ITS Technical Committee, or the SAE of ISO, think that IETF could help in designing requirements for the establishment of IP paths between vehicles for applications such as cooperative and adaptive cruis control, or platooning, then that should be said. Alex > > My two cents ... > > > RR >> -----Original Message----- From: Alexandru Petrescu >> [mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, >> 2014 8:17 AM To: its@ietf.org Subject: [geonet/its] FYI - ETSI ITS >> - work on cooperative cruise control,platooning >> >> Hello geonet/itsers, >> >> ETSI ITS group is an SDO in Europe. They produced many standards >> in the past for vehicular communications, e.g. ETSI ITS >> geo-networking among others. >> >> ETSI ITS recently agreed to start working on pre-standardization >> items called "Cooperative Cruise Control" and "Platooning". These >> two applications make automobiles (and trucks) talk to each other >> continuously to keep speed constant. It helps relieve automobile >> driver stress in jam situation or reduce gas consumption by >> 'platooning'. >> >> Currently the focus is on requirements including communication >> requirements. >> >> In my oppinion, and this is why I forward it to this group, >> establishing direct IP connections between vehicles may open paths >> for exchanging IP data containing speed/location and trigger a >> control process of adapting the speed. One already controls >> vehicles by sending IP data to them, from the infrastructure. It >> would be a simple matter for IP experts to send that same data >> from other vehicle, without going to the infrastructure. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Yours, >> >> Alex >> > > > > From nobody Mon Oct 27 06:06:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C0391AC3F7 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 06:06:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.583 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8eOxyiAicIBY for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 06:06:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73FD71A0366 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 06:06:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id s9RD6GRN032544; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:06:16 +0100 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 9F9E3204A59; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:07:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93746200EC7; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:07:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id s9RD67TT001603; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:06:16 +0100 Message-ID: <544E433F.6000702@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:06:07 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Kenney References: <544A6D4F.3060401@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/rEOP2wxSrvuJxqaJaJd6Ttq4DLk Cc: "its@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [geonet/its] FYI - ETSI ITS - work on cooperative cruise control, platooning X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "GeoNet BoF discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:06:21 -0000 Le 25/10/2014 01:45, John Kenney a écrit : > Hi Alex, > Thanks for sharing this. > > I think many of us in the DSRC/Cooperative ITS community consider these > two applications to be a very natural fit for the technology. Yes, these two applications (c-a speed control, platooning) are natural fits for the vehicle-to-vehicle kinds of communications. Very little if at all fixed infrastructure is needed, it must be fast, and despite apparent high dynamicity (movements) the networking structure may be relatively stable. > Furthermore, my expectation is that the applications can work well with > one-hop V2V communication of the type that does not typically use IP. > So, I don't see a benefit of including IP. That doesn't mean it > wouldn't work, but as you know the DSRC community generally plans to use > a lighter weight protocol, WSMP, for applications that do not need IP. > I expect ETSI will think along similar lines. I know ETSI geonetworking and IEEE WSMP are protocols which may be used in vehicle-to-vehicle communications. On another hand, I wonder whether an universally accepted protocol such as IP may not be preferrable at crossroads where incompatibilities seem to develop. If IP paths are used, then the IP data can very well be WSMP data, or ETSI ITS ADU data, carried as UDP or other transport protocol of choice. It would open doors not only to IEEE WSMP/ETSI ITS data, but also to the highly skilled application developper developping the next big thing in a garage. Alex > > Best Regards, > John > > -- > John Kenney > Principal Researcher > Toyota InfoTechnology Center, USA > 465 Bernardo Avenue > Mountain View, CA 94043 > Tel: 650-694-4160. Mobile: 650-224-6644 > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Alexandru Petrescu > > wrote: > > Hello geonet/itsers, > > ETSI ITS group is an SDO in Europe. They produced many standards in > the past for vehicular communications, e.g. ETSI ITS geo-networking > among others. > > ETSI ITS recently agreed to start working on pre-standardization > items called "Cooperative Cruise Control" and "Platooning". These > two applications make automobiles (and trucks) talk to each other > continuously to keep speed constant. It helps relieve automobile > driver stress in jam situation or reduce gas consumption by > 'platooning'. > > Currently the focus is on requirements including communication > requirements. > > In my oppinion, and this is why I forward it to this group, > establishing direct IP connections between vehicles may open paths > for exchanging IP data containing speed/location and trigger a > control process of adapting the speed. One already controls > vehicles by sending IP data to them, from the infrastructure. It > would be a simple matter for IP experts to send that same data from > other vehicle, without going to the infrastructure. > > Thoughts? > > Yours, > > Alex > > _________________________________________________ > its mailing list > its@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/its > > > > > > From nobody Mon Oct 27 07:50:45 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 162951A87D9 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 07:50:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.983 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SIeR5zgRuLPz for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 07:50:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F5B51A87D4 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 07:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id s9REoAkA018053; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:50:10 +0100 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 5FF16209C2D; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:51:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 500EC209C2E; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:51:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id s9REo4cS017591; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:50:09 +0100 Message-ID: <544E5B9C.7080601@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:50:04 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jean-Marie BONNIN , John Kenney References: <544A6D4F.3060401@gmail.com> <9D7DB8FB-FC07-4CB6-A83C-BCED4E1B9E03@telecom-bretagne.eu> In-Reply-To: <9D7DB8FB-FC07-4CB6-A83C-BCED4E1B9E03@telecom-bretagne.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/efe3872WN0nCeCU-TJ2LYiM7Z8E Cc: Jong-Hyouk Lee , "its@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [geonet/its] FYI - ETSI ITS - work on cooperative cruise control, platooning X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "GeoNet BoF discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:50:16 -0000 Le 26/10/2014 00:53, Jean-Marie BONNIN a écrit : > >> Le 25 oct. 2014 à 01:49, Jong-Hyouk Lee > > a écrit : >> >> >> -- >> Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random >> Protocol Engineering Lab., Sangmyung University >> >> #email: jonghyouk@gmail.com >> #webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon >> >>> On Oct 25, 2014, at 8:45 AM, John Kenney >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi Alex, >>> Thanks for sharing this. >>> >>> I think many of us in the DSRC/Cooperative ITS community consider >>> these two applications to be a very natural fit for the technology. >>> Furthermore, my expectation is that the applications can work well >>> with one-hop V2V communication of the type that does not typically >>> use IP. So, I don't see a benefit of including IP. That doesn't >>> mean it wouldn't work, but as you know the DSRC community generally >>> plans to use a lighter weight protocol, WSMP, for applications that >>> do not need IP. I expect ETSI will think along similar lines. >> >> +1 > > Yes you’re probably right. > ETSI has planed to standardize these applications over G5 (IEEE > 802.11p), but it could be very interesting to see if we can meet the > requirement using IP instead of CAM messages directly over G5. I agree, it would be interesting to see if we can meet these requirements by using IP: interesting from a purely technologial viewpoint, but also business and deployment points of view. > My understanding is that using only one-hop v2v could be not sufficient > in certain circonstances, when two lines of platooning vehicles have to > merge for example, or more obviously when you have to be forwarded by > the infrastructure to reach the next vehicle. In this last situation, > you could use multi hop geo-routing or have a part of the application > that run in the infrastructure. I agree. The initial step would be how to link only two vehicles together, by using a scalable IP-based technology. More complex vehicle topologies (two lines joing, splitting) are certainly excellent challenges for IP network designers using tools such as loop avoidance, discovery, hop limits. Alex > > My 2 ¢ > > JMB > >> >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> John >>> >>> -- >>> John Kenney >>> Principal Researcher >>> Toyota InfoTechnology Center, USA >>> 465 Bernardo Avenue >>> Mountain View, CA 94043 >>> Tel: 650-694-4160. Mobile: 650-224-6644 >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Alexandru Petrescu >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello geonet/itsers, >>> >>> ETSI ITS group is an SDO in Europe. They produced many standards >>> in the past for vehicular communications, e.g. ETSI ITS >>> geo-networking among others. >>> >>> ETSI ITS recently agreed to start working on pre-standardization >>> items called "Cooperative Cruise Control" and "Platooning". >>> These two applications make automobiles (and trucks) talk to each >>> other continuously to keep speed constant. It helps relieve >>> automobile driver stress in jam situation or reduce gas >>> consumption by 'platooning'. >>> >>> Currently the focus is on requirements including communication >>> requirements. >>> >>> In my oppinion, and this is why I forward it to this group, >>> establishing direct IP connections between vehicles may open >>> paths for exchanging IP data containing speed/location and >>> trigger a control process of adapting the speed. One already >>> controls vehicles by sending IP data to them, from the >>> infrastructure. It would be a simple matter for IP experts to >>> send that same data from other vehicle, without going to the >>> infrastructure. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Yours, >>> >>> Alex >>> >>> _________________________________________________ >>> its mailing list >>> its@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/its >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> its mailing list >>> its@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its >> >> _______________________________________________ >> its mailing list >> its@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its > > > T四残om Bretagne *Jean-Marie BONNIN* > Professor, Head of RSM dpt > IRISA, D2 (Network, Telecommunications & Services) dpt > IRISA / UeB > Tel. : +33 2 99 12 70 07 - +33 6 60 76 79 76 2, rue de la Châtaigneraie > CS 17607 > 35576 Cesson Sévigné, France > Site web LinkedIn > RG > > > From nobody Mon Oct 27 08:09:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B88501A886E for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:08:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.383 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.383 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lhlw5CYk9SzE for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:08:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20D221A87DB for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:08:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id s9RF8PLa012924; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:08:25 +0100 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id D3A58209C45; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:09:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2012209811; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:09:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id s9RF8JLi031880; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:08:25 +0100 Message-ID: <544E5FE4.4000503@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:08:20 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lei Chen , "Varadi , Andras (lesswire AG Ungarn)" References: <544A6D4F.3060401@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/On3adrL-p4BKVU9d-C7OSwELi7Q Cc: John Kenney , "its@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [geonet/its] FYI - ETSI ITS - work on cooperative cruise control, platooning X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "GeoNet BoF discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:08:33 -0000 Dear Lei Chen, Thank you for the reply. Le 27/10/2014 14:03, Lei Chen a écrit : > Dear all, > > Just a bit self introduction, we are working on the second edition of > cooperative driving challenge (www.gcdc.net ) > and somehow we came across the same topics here. GCDC is the same organization that issued the first freely available 802.11p driver? > Thanks to Alex to bring this topic up, it is very relevant for the > platoon applications. > > Basically, like Andras and John said, V2V through DSRC will be the > first implementation for initial application of platooning. IP will > most probably be used for Day2 applications that require more data > communications, for example, video streaming between platoon vehicles > or LDM. [LDM? (light-based communications, LiFi?)] I am happy to see IP communications are considered, even that is in the second day. I personally do not worry very much of being maybe later, because I think IP will support more applications, currently unspoken of. > It seems ETSI does this with an adaption layer (EN302 636-6-1, TS102 > 636-6-1) for IPv6 to work with GeoNet. Yes, there is an adaptation layer for IPv6 and geonet. It may be highly necessary in the initial steps of bringing IPv6 as close as possible to the deployment. IPv6-straight-over-80211p also uses an Adaptation Layer (the Ethernet Adaptation Layer used by 802.11b). > Anyway, GeoNet seems to be in the protocol stack for C-ITS no matter > what. Thanks for the remark. It is true that GeoNet of ETSI ITS is present there but one should distinguish the cases where it is absolutely necessary - something else can not do its role. These cases are the communications depending extensively on location: geo-dissemination, etc. > If IPv6 is considered, then the transport layer will be TCP/UDP over > IPv6 over GeoNet, though I am not sure about the protocol overhead. > It is an interesting issue to investigate. Yes, it is an issue to investigate. At IETF there is a document called IPv6-over-80211p that I author. The ideas expressed in this document could be used in this investigation. The document itself lacks certain aspects that anyone interested could contribute. > For platooning in Day1 applications, GeoNet (BTP and GeoNet for > transport) over G5 maybe the most appropriate choice at the current > stage because of the advantages of time delay. Not sure what you mean by 'time delay'? If you mean latency between vehicles, then I think 802.11p gives better latency, in the order of tens of millseconds. Or you mean that products implementing ETSI ITS GeoNet have a time advantage being already there? If so then I agree with you. > We are looking at different implementations of GeoNet for potential > deployment in GCDC. As we work towards Day2 applications, IPv6 is > potentially considered. INRIA has been working on the implementation > through CarGeo6. If you guys have more information about the > implementation now, it is very appreciated that you share with us. Sure, certainly. I downloaded CarGeo6 and looked at the code. I have the feeling that with it a car sends its position to another car. At my place we have another implementation of exchanging IPv6 routing information over 802.11p. We also have an update version of the original 802.11p GCDC driver for most recent linux kernels as well as other reliability improvements. > Also, if you know teams that want to show their implementations of > cooperative driving to the world, GCDC 2016 is the place to go. They > are free to contact us for registration or check www.gcdc.net > for details. YEs, this is a good announcement. Please state here what are the participating conditions - is it free to join, what are the fees involved, in which country is it happening. Alex > > Best regards, Lei > > > *Lei Chen, PhD* Senior Researcher Cooperative Systems > > > > *Viktoria Swedish ICT AB* Lindholmspiren 3A SE-417 56 Göteborg, > Sweden Tel: +46 76 777 1449 E-mail: lei.chen@viktoria.se > www.viktoria.se > > Part of RISE > >> On 27 Oct 2014, at 12:22, Varadi , Andras (lesswire AG Ungarn) >> > wrote: >> >> Dear Alex, John I agree with John, but would like to point out that >> I think its likely that we will need to extend EU Geonetworking (EN >> 302 636) to work over IP (e.g. LTE) links also. I think we will >> have such requirements for EU Day2 or 3 (2^nd , Third generation >> C-ITS) (example: update our Local Dynamic Map with a new Warning >> message received over cellular connection (not G5/11p)) Ãœdvözlettel >> / Best regards, András Váradi Project Manager – C2X/ITS Systems >> >> Automotive & WLAN Group lesswire Hungary***|***Office: +36 23521 >> 667***|***Email:Varadi@lesswire.com >> *From:*its [mailto:its-bounces@ietf.org]*On Behalf Of*John Kenney >> *Sent:*Saturday, October 25, 2014 1:45 AM *To:*Alexandru Petrescu >> *Cc:*its@ietf.org *Subject:*Re: [geonet/its] >> FYI - ETSI ITS - work on cooperative cruise control, platooning Hi >> Alex, Thanks for sharing this. I think many of us in the >> DSRC/Cooperative ITS community consider these two applications to >> be a very natural fit for the technology. Furthermore, my >> expectation is that the applications can work well with one-hop V2V >> communication of the type that does not typically use IP. So, I >> don't see a benefit of including IP. That doesn't mean it wouldn't >> work, but as you know the DSRC community generally plans to use a >> lighter weight protocol, WSMP, for applications that do not need >> IP. I expect ETSI will think along similar lines. Best Regards, >> John -- John Kenney Principal Researcher Toyota InfoTechnology >> Center, USA 465 Bernardo Avenue Mountain View, CA 94043 Tel: >> 650-694-4160. Mobile: 650-224-6644 On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:16 AM, >> Alexandru Petrescu > > wrote: Hello geonet/itsers, >> >> ETSI ITS group is an SDO in Europe. They produced many standards >> in the past for vehicular communications, e.g. ETSI ITS >> geo-networking among others. >> >> ETSI ITS recently agreed to start working on pre-standardization >> items called "Cooperative Cruise Control" and "Platooning". These >> two applications make automobiles (and trucks) talk to each other >> continuously to keep speed constant. It helps relieve automobile >> driver stress in jam situation or reduce gas consumption by >> 'platooning'. >> >> Currently the focus is on requirements including communication >> requirements. >> >> In my oppinion, and this is why I forward it to this group, >> establishing direct IP connections between vehicles may open paths >> for exchanging IP data containing speed/location and trigger a >> control process of adapting the speed. One already controls >> vehicles by sending IP data to them, from the infrastructure. It >> would be a simple matter for IP experts to send that same data from >> other vehicle, without going to the infrastructure. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Yours, >> >> Alex >> >> _______________________________________________ its mailing list >> its@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its >> >> >> _______________________________________________ its mailing list >> its@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its > From lei.chen@viktoria.se Mon Oct 27 10:31:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B48551A6F80 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:31:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.251 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_36=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_61=0.6] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id edKFqxIUggBr for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:31:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bond.viktoria.chalmers.se (bond.viktoria.chalmers.se [129.16.69.24]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BE2E1A1A25 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:30:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.170.20.194] (octopussy.viktoria.chalmers.se [129.16.145.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bond.viktoria.chalmers.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2966ACC9E; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:30:57 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_048DD41D-E85B-4AB3-A9E7-D7BD03A20E4E" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\)) From: Lei Chen In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:30:57 +0100 Message-Id: <5F92F372-B09F-4219-9CC2-1092D5CE9FC7@viktoria.se> References: <544A6D4F.3060401@gmail.com> <544E5FE4.4000503@gmail.com> To: Alexandru Petrescu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/PNhhwaUKruUSjifZvMlRKvtHCw8 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:17:19 -0700 Cc: "Varadi , Andras \(lesswire AG Ungarn\)" , "its@ietf.org" , John Kenney Subject: Re: [geonet/its] FYI - ETSI ITS - work on cooperative cruise control, platooning X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "GeoNet BoF discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 07:15:21 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_048DD41D-E85B-4AB3-A9E7-D7BD03A20E4E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Just want to mention that for GCDC 2016, any vendors that are willing to = sponsor teams with OBUs or want to involve with the challenge are more = than welcome. Please spread if possible.=20 Thanks in advance. Regards, Lei > On 27 Oct 2014, at 18:24, Lei Chen wrote: >=20 > Dear Alex, >=20 > Thanks very much for the detailed explanation and also the opportunity = to share with our community about GCDC 2016.=20 >=20 > Please see the following for details. >=20 > Best regards, > Lei >=20 >> On 27 Oct 2014, at 16:08, Alexandru Petrescu = wrote: >>=20 >> Dear Lei Chen, >>=20 >> Thank you for the reply. >>=20 >> Le 27/10/2014 14:03, Lei Chen a =C3=A9crit : >>> Dear all, >>>=20 >>> Just a bit self introduction, we are working on the second edition = of >>> cooperative driving challenge (www.gcdc.net ) >>> and somehow we came across the same topics here. >>=20 >> GCDC is the same organization that issued the first freely available >> 802.11p driver? >=20 > Last time, GCDC implemented 802.11p thanks to the work with Eric = Koenders.=20 > It is open-source, I hope that is the same one you are talking about.=20= >>=20 >>> Thanks to Alex to bring this topic up, it is very relevant for the >>> platoon applications. >>>=20 >>> Basically, like Andras and John said, V2V through DSRC will be the >>> first implementation for initial application of platooning. IP will >>> most probably be used for Day2 applications that require more data >>> communications, for example, video streaming between platoon = vehicles >>> or LDM. >>=20 >> [LDM? (light-based communications, LiFi?)] >=20 > Sorry for that, LDM =3D local dynamic map. Using DSRC and based on = CAM messages,=20 > LDM is able to be constructed, but if we consider more accurate and = complex LDM for=20 > environmental perception, I would say IP will be needed.=20 >=20 >>=20 >> I am happy to see IP communications are considered, even that is in = the >> second day. I personally do not worry very much of being maybe = later, >> because I think IP will support more applications, currently unspoken = of. >>=20 >>> It seems ETSI does this with an adaption layer (EN302 636-6-1, TS102 >>> 636-6-1) for IPv6 to work with GeoNet. >>=20 >> Yes, there is an adaptation layer for IPv6 and geonet. It may be = highly >> necessary in the initial steps of bringing IPv6 as close as possible = to >> the deployment. >>=20 >> IPv6-straight-over-80211p also uses an Adaptation Layer (the Ethernet = Adaptation Layer used by 802.11b). >>=20 >>> Anyway, GeoNet seems to be in the protocol stack for C-ITS no matter >>> what. >>=20 >> Thanks for the remark. It is true that GeoNet of ETSI ITS is present >> there but one should distinguish the cases where it is absolutely >> necessary - something else can not do its role. These cases are the >> communications depending extensively on location: geo-dissemination, = etc. >>=20 >=20 > Absolutely agree! In general, for infotainment application or less = time critical applications, IP network (LTE for example)=20 > will be the best choice. However, for time critical applications or as = you said, geo-dependent applications,=20 > GeoNet over 802.11p may be necessary, at least for the near future = applications. If we consider further with 5G, where the latency is=20 > expected to be significantly reduced, I guess everything can be done = through IP. But it is hard to draw conclusions about it=20 > at the current stage. Anyway,I guess the cross-layer Decentralized = Congestion Control (DCC) in C-ITS should be able > to take care of this based on the QoS requirement at the application = layer and direct the traffic to appropriate transport and access=20 > methods, at least it is supposed to do this.=20 >=20 >>> If IPv6 is considered, then the transport layer will be TCP/UDP over >>> IPv6 over GeoNet, though I am not sure about the protocol overhead. >>> It is an interesting issue to investigate. >>=20 >> Yes, it is an issue to investigate. >>=20 >> At IETF there is a document called IPv6-over-80211p that I author. = The >> ideas expressed in this document could be used in this investigation. >> The document itself lacks certain aspects that anyone interested = could >> contribute. >=20 > Thanks, I am checking with the document, I would say IPv6 over = 802.11p is absolutely an option=20 > and we are investigating the possibilities. I hope we can also = contribute to this topic.=20 >=20 >>=20 >>> For platooning in Day1 applications, GeoNet (BTP and GeoNet for >>> transport) over G5 maybe the most appropriate choice at the current >>> stage because of the advantages of time delay. >>=20 >> Not sure what you mean by 'time delay'? >>=20 >> If you mean latency between vehicles, then I think 802.11p gives = better >> latency, in the order of tens of millseconds. >>=20 >> Or you mean that products implementing ETSI ITS GeoNet have a time >> advantage being already there? If so then I agree with you. >=20 > Yes, it is latency. 802.11p based access generally have better = latency, and a light weight BTP&GeoNet=20 > also contributes to the latency issue. I guess IP over 802.11p may = achieve similar latency performance, though I need to check > a bit more over that. As for IPv6 over GeoNet over 802.11p, as we = already mentioned, the overhead is worth investigating=20 > further. It is also one topic we will look at.=20 >=20 >>=20 >>> We are looking at different implementations of GeoNet for potential >>> deployment in GCDC. As we work towards Day2 applications, IPv6 is >>> potentially considered. INRIA has been working on the implementation >>> through CarGeo6. If you guys have more information about the >>> implementation now, it is very appreciated that you share with us. >>=20 >> Sure, certainly. I downloaded CarGeo6 and looked at the code. I = have the feeling that with it a car sends its position to another car. >>=20 >> At my place we have another implementation of exchanging IPv6 routing = information over 802.11p. We also have an update version of the = original 802.11p GCDC driver for most recent linux kernels as well as = other reliability improvements. >>=20 > We are investigating CarGeo6 now. But it is very interesting you = have an update version of the 802.11p protocol. I am not sure if you = already make it open source or not. If so, it will be absolutely a great = help for us to check the possibilities of applying IPv6 over 802.11p. = Could you indicate me how and where I can check and then I can talk with = my colleagues both at Viktoria and TNO for further discussions? If we = prove the performance with IP over 802.11p during the challenge, I would = say that will be a great contribution to C-ITS, at least for some part. = Thanks very much beforehand:-) =20 >=20 >>> Also, if you know teams that want to show their implementations of >>> cooperative driving to the world, GCDC 2016 is the place to go. They >>> are free to contact us for registration or check www.gcdc.net = >>> > for details. >>=20 >> YEs, this is a good announcement. Please state here what are the = participating conditions - is it free to join, what are the fees = involved, in which country is it happening. >=20 > Thanks Alex, it is my pleasure to share with our community the = announcement. =20 >=20 > GCDC2016, or i-GAME (www.gcdc.net ) is the = second edition of GCDC based on its success in 2011 and with the purpose = to accelerate cooperative driving through public challenge. GCDC2016 = will mainly focus on the interoperability of communications, e.g. = communications are vendor independent and teams are very welcome to = implement based on different equipments from different vendors . = However, the communications protocol will align to the latest C-ITS = standards (Release 1) and potentially will contribute to Release 2.=20 >=20 > It is totally free to join the challenge and in addition to that, = teams will get support from organizers (TNO and TU/e from holland, = Viktoria Swedish ICT from Sweden and IDIADA from Spain). The final = challenge will be Q2 2016 at the test site in Helmond in Holland, = exactly the same test site as GCDC 2011. GCDC2016 have two challenge = scenarios and one demo scenario. Challenge scenarios include both urban = (intersection passing) and highway (platoon merge due to roadwork). Demo = scenario is about emergency vehicle passing. All scenarios are defined = to be close to reality and the implementations are also expected to be = as close-to market as possible. We want to show the benefits of = cooperative driving and also raise the awareness from both government = and public. >=20 > The call on registrations is on-going. Notice that the registration is = not binding at this stage. Teams can show interest and ask for further = information and if possible, the organizers may help to assist to find = partners. Teams are also very welcome to contribute to the = implementation of communication protocols together with us. Just drop us = emails :-) >=20 > For those who are interested, some general requirements are as = follows, > =E2=80=A2A vehicle that will be fitted with the requirements > =E2=80=A2Minimum longitudinal automation > =E2=80=A2Interoperable V2X communication and interaction = =E2=80=93 will be tested both remotely online and physically at the = challenge site > =E2=80=A2Drivers are in the vehicles, safety is critical > =E2=80=A2Drivers and support crew > =E2=80=A2Budget for travel, transport and subsistence > =E2=80=A2Taking part in preparative workshops and the rigorous = functional testing before the challenge > =E2=80=A2Be ready by Spring 2016! >=20 > In return, the teams will get > =E2=80=A2Once in a lifetime opportunity to work with = universities, OEMs and authorities to forward the state of cooperative = autonomous driving > =E2=80=A2Get in contact with world class companies and people in = this field > =E2=80=A2Collaborate at the forefront of standardization efforts > =E2=80=A2Help your institution learn and build its reputation > =E2=80=A2Win the challenge and eternal fame! >=20 > Just a video introduction of last time=E2=80=99s challenge = (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlmRifLzw8iA = ) for those who are = interested. Teams now can register at www.gcdc.net = or contact the following people.=20 >=20 > For registration and team information: = l.r.r.schrijnemakers@tue.nl = (Laurens Schrijnemakers) >=20 > For project information and collaboration: sander.maas@tno.nl = (Sander Maas) =20 >=20 > We sincerely look forward for teams from all over the world to = participate :) >=20 >>=20 >> Alex >>=20 >>>=20 >>> Best regards, Lei >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> *Lei Chen, PhD* Senior Researcher Cooperative Systems >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> *Viktoria Swedish ICT AB* Lindholmspiren 3A SE-417 56 G=C3=B6teborg, >>> Sweden Tel: +46 76 777 1449 E-mail: lei.chen@viktoria.se >>> www.viktoria.se >>>=20 >>> Part of RISE >>>=20 >>>> On 27 Oct 2014, at 12:22, Varadi , Andras (lesswire AG Ungarn) >>>> > wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> Dear Alex, John I agree with John, but would like to point out that >>>> I think its likely that we will need to extend EU Geonetworking (EN >>>> 302 636) to work over IP (e.g. LTE) links also. I think we will >>>> have such requirements for EU Day2 or 3 (2^nd , Third generation >>>> C-ITS) (example: update our Local Dynamic Map with a new Warning >>>> message received over cellular connection (not G5/11p)) = =C3=9Cdv=C3=B6zlettel >>>> / Best regards, Andr=C3=A1s V=C3=A1radi Project Manager =E2=80=93 = C2X/ITS Systems >>>>=20 >>>> Automotive & WLAN Group lesswire Hungary***|***Office: +36 23521 >>>> 667***|***Email:Varadi@lesswire.com >>>> *From:*its [mailto:its-bounces@ietf.org]*On Behalf Of*John Kenney >>>> *Sent:*Saturday, October 25, 2014 1:45 AM *To:*Alexandru Petrescu >>>> *Cc:*its@ietf.org *Subject:*Re: [geonet/its] >>>> FYI - ETSI ITS - work on cooperative cruise control, platooning Hi >>>> Alex, Thanks for sharing this. I think many of us in the >>>> DSRC/Cooperative ITS community consider these two applications to >>>> be a very natural fit for the technology. Furthermore, my >>>> expectation is that the applications can work well with one-hop V2V >>>> communication of the type that does not typically use IP. So, I >>>> don't see a benefit of including IP. That doesn't mean it wouldn't >>>> work, but as you know the DSRC community generally plans to use a >>>> lighter weight protocol, WSMP, for applications that do not need >>>> IP. I expect ETSI will think along similar lines. Best Regards, >>>> John -- John Kenney Principal Researcher Toyota InfoTechnology >>>> Center, USA 465 Bernardo Avenue Mountain View, CA 94043 Tel: >>>> 650-694-4160. Mobile: 650-224-6644 On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:16 AM, >>>> Alexandru Petrescu >>> > wrote: Hello geonet/itsers, >>>>=20 >>>> ETSI ITS group is an SDO in Europe. They produced many standards >>>> in the past for vehicular communications, e.g. ETSI ITS >>>> geo-networking among others. >>>>=20 >>>> ETSI ITS recently agreed to start working on pre-standardization >>>> items called "Cooperative Cruise Control" and "Platooning". These >>>> two applications make automobiles (and trucks) talk to each other >>>> continuously to keep speed constant. It helps relieve automobile >>>> driver stress in jam situation or reduce gas consumption by >>>> 'platooning'. >>>>=20 >>>> Currently the focus is on requirements including communication >>>> requirements. >>>>=20 >>>> In my oppinion, and this is why I forward it to this group, >>>> establishing direct IP connections between vehicles may open paths >>>> for exchanging IP data containing speed/location and trigger a >>>> control process of adapting the speed. One already controls >>>> vehicles by sending IP data to them, from the infrastructure. It >>>> would be a simple matter for IP experts to send that same data from >>>> other vehicle, without going to the infrastructure. >>>>=20 >>>> Thoughts? >>>>=20 >>>> Yours, >>>>=20 >>>> Alex >>>>=20 >>>> _______________________________________________ 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 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> its mailing list >> its@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its --Apple-Mail=_048DD41D-E85B-4AB3-A9E7-D7BD03A20E4E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Just want to mention that for GCDC 2016, any vendors that are = willing to sponsor teams with OBUs or want to involve with the challenge = are more than welcome. Please spread if possible. 
Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Lei

On = 27 Oct 2014, at 18:24, Lei Chen <lei.chen@viktoria.se> wrote:

Dear Alex,

Thanks very much for the detailed explanation = and also the opportunity to share with our community about GCDC = 2016. 

Please see the following for details.

Best regards,
Lei

On 27 Oct 2014, at 16:08, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Lei Chen,

Thank you for the = reply.

Le 27/10/2014 14:03, Lei Chen a = =C3=A9crit :
Dear = all,

Just a bit self introduction, we are = working on the second edition of
cooperative driving = challenge (www.gcdc.net = <http://www.gcdc.net>)
and somehow we = came across the same topics here.

GCDC is the same organization that issued the first freely = available
802.11p driver?

  Last time, GCDC implemented 802.11p = thanks to the work with Eric Koenders. 
It is open-source, I hope that is the same one = you are talking about. 

Thanks to Alex to bring = this topic up, it is very relevant for the
platoon = applications.

Basically, like Andras and = John said, V2V through DSRC will be the
first = implementation for initial application of platooning.  IP will
most probably be used for Day2 applications that require more = data
communications, for example, video streaming between = platoon vehicles
or LDM.

[LDM?  (light-based communications, LiFi?)]

  Sorry for = that,  LDM =3D local dynamic map. Using DSRC and based on CAM = messages, 
LDM is able to be constructed, but if we = consider more accurate and complex LDM for 
environmental perception, I would say IP will be = needed. 


I am = happy to see IP communications are considered, even that is in the
second day.  I personally do not worry very much of = being maybe later,
because I think IP will support more = applications, currently unspoken of.

It seems ETSI does this = with an adaption layer (EN302 636-6-1, TS102
636-6-1) for = IPv6 to work with GeoNet.

Yes, = there is an adaptation layer for IPv6 and geonet.  It may be = highly
necessary in the initial steps of bringing IPv6 as = close as possible to
the deployment.

IPv6-straight-over-80211p also uses an Adaptation Layer (the = Ethernet Adaptation Layer used by 802.11b).

Anyway, GeoNet seems to = be in the protocol stack for C-ITS no matter
what.

Thanks for the remark.  It = is true that GeoNet of ETSI ITS is present
there but one = should distinguish the cases where it is absolutely
necessary - something else can not do its role.  These = cases are the
communications depending extensively on = location: geo-dissemination, etc.


Absolutely agree! In = general, for infotainment application or less time critical = applications, IP network (LTE for example) 
will be the best choice. However, for time = critical applications or as you said, geo-dependent applications, 
GeoNet over 802.11p may be necessary, at least = for the near future applications. If we consider further with 5G, where = the latency is 
expected to be significantly reduced, I guess = everything can be done through IP. But it is hard to draw conclusions = about it 
at the current stage. Anyway,I guess the = cross-layer Decentralized Congestion Control (DCC) in C-ITS should be = able
to take care of this based = on the QoS requirement at the application layer and direct the traffic = to appropriate transport and access 
methods, at least it is supposed to do = this. 

If IPv6 is considered, then the transport layer will be = TCP/UDP over
IPv6 over GeoNet, though I am not sure about = the protocol overhead.
It is an interesting issue to = investigate.

Yes, it is an = issue to investigate.

At IETF there is a = document called IPv6-over-80211p that I author.  The
ideas expressed in this document could be used in this = investigation.
The document itself lacks certain aspects = that anyone interested could
contribute.

  Thanks, I am = checking with the document, I would say IPv6 over 802.11p is absolutely = an option 
and we are investigating the possibilities. I = hope we can also contribute to this topic. 


For platooning in Day1 = applications, GeoNet (BTP and GeoNet for
transport) over = G5 maybe the most appropriate choice at the current
stage = because of the advantages of time delay.

Not sure what you mean by 'time delay'?

If you mean latency between vehicles, then I think 802.11p = gives better
latency, in the order of tens of = millseconds.

Or you mean that products = implementing ETSI ITS GeoNet have a time
advantage being = already there?  If so then I agree with you.

  Yes, it is = latency. 802.11p based access generally have better latency, and a light = weight BTP&GeoNet 
also contributes to the latency issue. I guess = IP over 802.11p may achieve similar latency performance, though I need = to check
a bit more over that. As = for IPv6 over GeoNet over 802.11p, as we already mentioned, the overhead = is worth investigating 
further. It is also one topic we will look = at. 


We are looking at = different implementations of GeoNet for potential
deployment= in GCDC. As we work towards Day2 applications, IPv6 is
potentially considered. INRIA has been working on the = implementation
through CarGeo6. If you guys have more = information about the
implementation now, it is very = appreciated that you share with us.

Sure, certainly.  I downloaded CarGeo6 and looked at the = code.  I have the feeling that with it a car sends its position to = another car.

At my place we have another = implementation of exchanging IPv6 routing information over 802.11p. =  We also have an update version of the original 802.11p GCDC driver = for most recent linux kernels as well as other reliability = improvements.

  We are investigating CarGeo6 now. = But it is very interesting you have an update version of the 802.11p = protocol. I am not sure if you already make it open source or not. If = so, it will be absolutely a great help for us to check the possibilities = of applying IPv6 over 802.11p. Could you indicate me how and where I can = check and then I can talk with my colleagues both at Viktoria and TNO = for further discussions? If we prove the performance with IP over = 802.11p during the challenge, I would say that will be a great = contribution to C-ITS, at least for some part. Thanks very much = beforehand:-)   

Also, if you know = teams that want to show their implementations of
cooperative= driving to the world, GCDC 2016 is the place to go. They
are free to contact us for registration or check www.gcdc.net
<http://www.gcdc.net> for details.

YEs, this is a good announcement. =  Please state here what are the participating conditions - is it = free to join, what are the fees involved, in which country is it = happening.

Thanks Alex, it is my pleasure to share with our = community the announcement.    

GCDC2016, or i-GAME (www.gcdc.net) is the second = edition of GCDC based on its success in 2011 and with the purpose to = accelerate cooperative driving through public challenge. GCDC2016 will = mainly focus on the interoperability of communications, e.g. = communications are vendor independent and teams are very welcome to = implement based on different equipments from different vendors . = However, the communications protocol will align to the latest C-ITS = standards (Release 1) and potentially will contribute to Release 2. 

It is totally free to join the challenge and in = addition to that, teams will get support from organizers (TNO and TU/e = from holland, Viktoria Swedish ICT from Sweden and IDIADA from Spain). = The final challenge will be Q2 2016 at the test site in Helmond in = Holland, exactly the same test site as GCDC 2011. GCDC2016 have two = challenge scenarios and one demo scenario. Challenge scenarios include = both urban (intersection passing) and highway (platoon merge due to = roadwork). Demo scenario is about emergency vehicle passing. All = scenarios are defined to be close to reality and the implementations are = also expected to be as close-to market as possible. We want to show the = benefits of cooperative driving and also raise the awareness from both = government and public.

The call on registrations = is on-going. Notice that the registration is not binding at this stage. = Teams can show interest and ask for further information and if possible, = the organizers may help to assist to find partners. Teams are also very = welcome to contribute to the implementation of communication protocols = together with us. Just drop us emails :-)

For those who are interested, some general = requirements are as follows,
=E2=80=A2A vehicle that will be fitted with the = requirements
= =E2=80=A2Minimum = longitudinal automation
= =E2=80=A2Interoperable V2X = communication and interaction =E2=80=93 will be tested both remotely = online and physically at the challenge site
= = =E2=80=A2Drivers are in = the vehicles, safety is critical
=E2=80=A2Drivers and support crew
= =E2=80=A2Budget for = travel, transport and subsistence
=E2=80=A2Taking part in preparative workshops = and the rigorous functional testing before the challenge
= =E2=80=A2Be ready by = Spring 2016!

In return, the teams will = get
=E2=80=A2Once in a lifetime opportunity to work = with universities, OEMs and authorities to forward the state of = cooperative autonomous driving
=E2=80=A2Get in contact with world class = companies and people in this field
=E2=80=A2Collaborate at the forefront of = standardization efforts
=E2=80=A2Help your institution learn and build = its reputation
=E2=80=A2Win the challenge and eternal = fame!

Just a video introduction = of last time=E2=80=99s challenge (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlmRifLzw8iA) for those who are interested. Teams now can = register at www.gcdc.net or contact the following = people. 

For registration and team information: =  l.r.r.schrijnemakers@tue.nl (Laurens = Schrijnemakers)

For project information and collaboration: sander.maas@tno.nl (Sander Maas) =    

We sincerely look forward = for teams from all over the world to participate :)


Alex


Best regards, Lei


*Lei Chen, PhD* Senior Researcher Cooperative Systems



*Viktoria = Swedish ICT AB* Lindholmspiren 3A SE-417 56 G=C3=B6teborg,
Sweden Tel: +46 76 777 1449 E-mail: lei.chen@viktoria.se = <mailto:>
www.viktoria.se <http://www.viktoria.se>

Part of RISE

On 27 Oct 2014, at 12:22, Varadi , Andras = (lesswire AG Ungarn)
<Varadi@lesswire.com = <mailto:Varadi@lesswire.com>> wrote:
Dear Alex, John I agree with John, but would like to point = out that
I think its likely that we will need to extend EU = Geonetworking (EN
302 636) to work over IP (e.g. LTE) = links also. I think we will
have such requirements for EU = Day2 or 3 (2^nd , Third generation
C-ITS) (example: update = our Local Dynamic Map with a new Warning
message received = over cellular connection (not G5/11p)) =C3=9Cdv=C3=B6zlettel
/ Best regards, Andr=C3=A1s V=C3=A1radi Project Manager =E2=80=93= C2X/ITS Systems

Automotive & WLAN = Group lesswire Hungary***|***Office: +36 23521
667***|***Email:Varadi@lesswire.com <mailto:Varadi@lesswire.com>
*From:*its = [mailto:its-bounces@ietf.org]*On Behalf Of*John Kenney
*Sent:*Saturday, October 25, 2014 1:45 AM *To:*Alexandru = Petrescu
*Cc:*its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org> *Subject:*Re: [geonet/its]
FYI - ETSI ITS - work on cooperative cruise control, = platooning Hi
Alex, Thanks for sharing this. I think many = of us in the
DSRC/Cooperative ITS community consider these = two applications to
be a very natural fit for the = technology. Furthermore, my
expectation is that the = applications can work well with one-hop V2V
communication = of the type that does not typically use IP.  So, I
don't see a benefit of including IP.  That doesn't mean = it wouldn't
work, but as you know the DSRC community = generally plans to use a
lighter weight protocol, WSMP, = for applications that do not need
IP.  I expect ETSI = will think along similar lines. Best Regards,
John -- John = Kenney Principal Researcher Toyota InfoTechnology
Center, = USA 465 Bernardo Avenue Mountain View, CA 94043 Tel:
650-694-4160. Mobile: 650-224-6644 On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at = 8:16 AM,
Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com
<mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello = geonet/itsers,

ETSI ITS group is an SDO in = Europe.  They produced many standards
in the past for = vehicular communications, e.g. ETSI ITS
geo-networking = among others.

ETSI ITS recently agreed to = start working on pre-standardization
items called = "Cooperative Cruise Control" and "Platooning".  These
two applications make automobiles (and trucks) talk to each = other
continuously to keep speed constant.  It helps = relieve automobile
driver stress in jam situation or = reduce gas consumption by
'platooning'.

Currently the focus is on requirements including = communication
requirements.

In = my oppinion, and this is why I forward it to this group,
establishing direct IP connections between vehicles may open = paths
for exchanging IP data containing speed/location and = trigger a
control process of adapting the speed.  One = already controls
vehicles by sending IP data to them, from = the infrastructure.  It
would be a simple matter for = IP experts to send that same data from
other vehicle, = without going to the infrastructure.

Thoughts?

Yours,
Alex

_______________________________________________ its mailing = list
its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

_______________________________________________= its mailing list
its@ietf.org = <mailto:its@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its



_______________________________________________
its mailing list
its@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

= --Apple-Mail=_048DD41D-E85B-4AB3-A9E7-D7BD03A20E4E-- From lei.chen@viktoria.se Mon Oct 27 10:24:23 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C56821A0183 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:24:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.25 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.25 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_36=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_61=0.6] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ahrtaSWzYqXj for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bond.viktoria.chalmers.se (bond.viktoria.chalmers.se [129.16.69.24]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 241C71A017C for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:24:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.170.20.194] (octopussy.viktoria.chalmers.se [129.16.145.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bond.viktoria.chalmers.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03C4CACC9E; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:24:15 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\)) From: Lei Chen In-Reply-To: <544E5FE4.4000503@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:24:14 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <544A6D4F.3060401@gmail.com> <544E5FE4.4000503@gmail.com> To: Alexandru Petrescu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/EWNb7kl5KYq0WU2UZawocnLaRMA Cc: "Varadi , Andras \(lesswire AG Ungarn\)" , "its@ietf.org" , John Kenney Subject: Re: [geonet/its] FYI - ETSI ITS - work on cooperative cruise control, platooning X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "GeoNet BoF discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:17:04 -0000 Dear Alex, Thanks very much for the detailed explanation and also the opportunity = to share with our community about GCDC 2016.=20 Please see the following for details. Best regards, Lei > On 27 Oct 2014, at 16:08, Alexandru Petrescu = wrote: >=20 > Dear Lei Chen, >=20 > Thank you for the reply. >=20 > Le 27/10/2014 14:03, Lei Chen a =C3=A9crit : >> Dear all, >>=20 >> Just a bit self introduction, we are working on the second edition of >> cooperative driving challenge (www.gcdc.net ) >> and somehow we came across the same topics here. >=20 > GCDC is the same organization that issued the first freely available > 802.11p driver? =20 Last time, GCDC implemented 802.11p thanks to the work with Eric = Koenders.=20 It is open-source, I hope that is the same one you are talking about.=20 >=20 >> Thanks to Alex to bring this topic up, it is very relevant for the >> platoon applications. >>=20 >> Basically, like Andras and John said, V2V through DSRC will be the >> first implementation for initial application of platooning. IP will >> most probably be used for Day2 applications that require more data >> communications, for example, video streaming between platoon vehicles >> or LDM. >=20 > [LDM? (light-based communications, LiFi?)] Sorry for that, LDM =3D local dynamic map. Using DSRC and based on = CAM messages,=20 LDM is able to be constructed, but if we consider more accurate and = complex LDM for=20 environmental perception, I would say IP will be needed.=20 >=20 > I am happy to see IP communications are considered, even that is in = the > second day. I personally do not worry very much of being maybe later, > because I think IP will support more applications, currently unspoken = of. >=20 >> It seems ETSI does this with an adaption layer (EN302 636-6-1, TS102 >> 636-6-1) for IPv6 to work with GeoNet. >=20 > Yes, there is an adaptation layer for IPv6 and geonet. It may be = highly > necessary in the initial steps of bringing IPv6 as close as possible = to > the deployment. >=20 > IPv6-straight-over-80211p also uses an Adaptation Layer (the Ethernet = Adaptation Layer used by 802.11b). >=20 >> Anyway, GeoNet seems to be in the protocol stack for C-ITS no matter >> what. >=20 > Thanks for the remark. It is true that GeoNet of ETSI ITS is present > there but one should distinguish the cases where it is absolutely > necessary - something else can not do its role. These cases are the > communications depending extensively on location: geo-dissemination, = etc. >=20 Absolutely agree! In general, for infotainment application or less time = critical applications, IP network (LTE for example)=20 will be the best choice. However, for time critical applications or as = you said, geo-dependent applications,=20 GeoNet over 802.11p may be necessary, at least for the near future = applications. If we consider further with 5G, where the latency is=20 expected to be significantly reduced, I guess everything can be done = through IP. But it is hard to draw conclusions about it=20 at the current stage. Anyway,I guess the cross-layer Decentralized = Congestion Control (DCC) in C-ITS should be able to take care of this based on the QoS requirement at the application = layer and direct the traffic to appropriate transport and access=20 methods, at least it is supposed to do this.=20 >> If IPv6 is considered, then the transport layer will be TCP/UDP over >> IPv6 over GeoNet, though I am not sure about the protocol overhead. >> It is an interesting issue to investigate. >=20 > Yes, it is an issue to investigate. >=20 > At IETF there is a document called IPv6-over-80211p that I author. = The > ideas expressed in this document could be used in this investigation. > The document itself lacks certain aspects that anyone interested could > contribute. =20 Thanks, I am checking with the document, I would say IPv6 over = 802.11p is absolutely an option=20 and we are investigating the possibilities. I hope we can also = contribute to this topic.=20 >=20 >> For platooning in Day1 applications, GeoNet (BTP and GeoNet for >> transport) over G5 maybe the most appropriate choice at the current >> stage because of the advantages of time delay. >=20 > Not sure what you mean by 'time delay'? >=20 > If you mean latency between vehicles, then I think 802.11p gives = better > latency, in the order of tens of millseconds. >=20 > Or you mean that products implementing ETSI ITS GeoNet have a time > advantage being already there? If so then I agree with you. Yes, it is latency. 802.11p based access generally have better = latency, and a light weight BTP&GeoNet=20 also contributes to the latency issue. I guess IP over 802.11p may = achieve similar latency performance, though I need to check a bit more over that. As for IPv6 over GeoNet over 802.11p, as we = already mentioned, the overhead is worth investigating=20 further. It is also one topic we will look at.=20 >=20 >> We are looking at different implementations of GeoNet for potential >> deployment in GCDC. As we work towards Day2 applications, IPv6 is >> potentially considered. INRIA has been working on the implementation >> through CarGeo6. If you guys have more information about the >> implementation now, it is very appreciated that you share with us. >=20 > Sure, certainly. I downloaded CarGeo6 and looked at the code. I have = the feeling that with it a car sends its position to another car. >=20 > At my place we have another implementation of exchanging IPv6 routing = information over 802.11p. We also have an update version of the = original 802.11p GCDC driver for most recent linux kernels as well as = other reliability improvements. >=20 We are investigating CarGeo6 now. But it is very interesting you have = an update version of the 802.11p protocol. I am not sure if you already = make it open source or not. If so, it will be absolutely a great help = for us to check the possibilities of applying IPv6 over 802.11p. Could = you indicate me how and where I can check and then I can talk with my = colleagues both at Viktoria and TNO for further discussions? If we prove = the performance with IP over 802.11p during the challenge, I would say = that will be a great contribution to C-ITS, at least for some part. = Thanks very much beforehand:-) =20 >> Also, if you know teams that want to show their implementations of >> cooperative driving to the world, GCDC 2016 is the place to go. They >> are free to contact us for registration or check www.gcdc.net >> for details. >=20 > YEs, this is a good announcement. Please state here what are the = participating conditions - is it free to join, what are the fees = involved, in which country is it happening. Thanks Alex, it is my pleasure to share with our community the = announcement. =20 GCDC2016, or i-GAME (www.gcdc.net) is the second edition of GCDC based = on its success in 2011 and with the purpose to accelerate cooperative = driving through public challenge. GCDC2016 will mainly focus on the = interoperability of communications, e.g. communications are vendor = independent and teams are very welcome to implement based on different = equipments from different vendors . However, the communications protocol = will align to the latest C-ITS standards (Release 1) and potentially = will contribute to Release 2.=20 It is totally free to join the challenge and in addition to that, teams = will get support from organizers (TNO and TU/e from holland, Viktoria = Swedish ICT from Sweden and IDIADA from Spain). The final challenge will = be Q2 2016 at the test site in Helmond in Holland, exactly the same test = site as GCDC 2011. GCDC2016 have two challenge scenarios and one demo = scenario. Challenge scenarios include both urban (intersection passing) = and highway (platoon merge due to roadwork). Demo scenario is about = emergency vehicle passing. All scenarios are defined to be close to = reality and the implementations are also expected to be as close-to = market as possible. We want to show the benefits of cooperative driving = and also raise the awareness from both government and public. The call on registrations is on-going. Notice that the registration is = not binding at this stage. Teams can show interest and ask for further = information and if possible, the organizers may help to assist to find = partners. Teams are also very welcome to contribute to the = implementation of communication protocols together with us. Just drop us = emails :-) For those who are interested, some general requirements are as follows, =E2=80=A2A vehicle that will be fitted with the requirements =E2=80=A2Minimum longitudinal automation =E2=80=A2Interoperable V2X communication and interaction = =E2=80=93 will be tested both remotely online and physically at the = challenge site =E2=80=A2Drivers are in the vehicles, safety is critical =E2=80=A2Drivers and support crew =E2=80=A2Budget for travel, transport and subsistence =E2=80=A2Taking part in preparative workshops and the rigorous = functional testing before the challenge =E2=80=A2Be ready by Spring 2016! In return, the teams will get =E2=80=A2Once in a lifetime opportunity to work with = universities, OEMs and authorities to forward the state of cooperative = autonomous driving =E2=80=A2Get in contact with world class companies and people in = this field =E2=80=A2Collaborate at the forefront of standardization efforts =E2=80=A2Help your institution learn and build its reputation =E2=80=A2Win the challenge and eternal fame! Just a video introduction of last time=E2=80=99s challenge = (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlmRifLzw8iA) for those who are = interested. Teams now can register at www.gcdc.net or contact the = following people.=20 For registration and team information: = l.r.r.schrijnemakers@tue.nl (Laurens Schrijnemakers) For project information and collaboration: sander.maas@tno.nl = (Sander Maas) =20 We sincerely look forward for teams from all over the world to = participate :) >=20 > Alex >=20 >>=20 >> Best regards, Lei >>=20 >>=20 >> *Lei Chen, PhD* Senior Researcher Cooperative Systems >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> *Viktoria Swedish ICT AB* Lindholmspiren 3A SE-417 56 G=C3=B6teborg, >> Sweden Tel: +46 76 777 1449 E-mail: lei.chen@viktoria.se >> www.viktoria.se >>=20 >> Part of RISE >>=20 >>> On 27 Oct 2014, at 12:22, Varadi , Andras (lesswire AG Ungarn) >>> > wrote: >>>=20 >>> Dear Alex, John I agree with John, but would like to point out that >>> I think its likely that we will need to extend EU Geonetworking (EN >>> 302 636) to work over IP (e.g. LTE) links also. I think we will >>> have such requirements for EU Day2 or 3 (2^nd , Third generation >>> C-ITS) (example: update our Local Dynamic Map with a new Warning >>> message received over cellular connection (not G5/11p)) = =C3=9Cdv=C3=B6zlettel >>> / Best regards, Andr=C3=A1s V=C3=A1radi Project Manager =E2=80=93 = C2X/ITS Systems >>>=20 >>> Automotive & WLAN Group lesswire Hungary***|***Office: +36 23521 >>> 667***|***Email:Varadi@lesswire.com >>> *From:*its [mailto:its-bounces@ietf.org]*On Behalf Of*John Kenney >>> *Sent:*Saturday, October 25, 2014 1:45 AM *To:*Alexandru Petrescu >>> *Cc:*its@ietf.org *Subject:*Re: [geonet/its] >>> FYI - ETSI ITS - work on cooperative cruise control, platooning Hi >>> Alex, Thanks for sharing this. I think many of us in the >>> DSRC/Cooperative ITS community consider these two applications to >>> be a very natural fit for the technology. Furthermore, my >>> expectation is that the applications can work well with one-hop V2V >>> communication of the type that does not typically use IP. So, I >>> don't see a benefit of including IP. That doesn't mean it wouldn't >>> work, but as you know the DSRC community generally plans to use a >>> lighter weight protocol, WSMP, for applications that do not need >>> IP. I expect ETSI will think along similar lines. Best Regards, >>> John -- John Kenney Principal Researcher Toyota InfoTechnology >>> Center, USA 465 Bernardo Avenue Mountain View, CA 94043 Tel: >>> 650-694-4160. Mobile: 650-224-6644 On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:16 AM, >>> Alexandru Petrescu >> > wrote: Hello geonet/itsers, >>>=20 >>> ETSI ITS group is an SDO in Europe. They produced many standards >>> in the past for vehicular communications, e.g. ETSI ITS >>> geo-networking among others. >>>=20 >>> ETSI ITS recently agreed to start working on pre-standardization >>> items called "Cooperative Cruise Control" and "Platooning". These >>> two applications make automobiles (and trucks) talk to each other >>> continuously to keep speed constant. It helps relieve automobile >>> driver stress in jam situation or reduce gas consumption by >>> 'platooning'. >>>=20 >>> Currently the focus is on requirements including communication >>> requirements. >>>=20 >>> In my oppinion, and this is why I forward it to this group, >>> establishing direct IP connections between vehicles may open paths >>> for exchanging IP data containing speed/location and trigger a >>> control process of adapting the speed. One already controls >>> vehicles by sending IP data to them, from the infrastructure. It >>> would be a simple matter for IP experts to send that same data from >>> other vehicle, without going to the infrastructure. >>>=20 >>> Thoughts? >>>=20 >>> Yours, >>>=20 >>> Alex >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ 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 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > its mailing list > its@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its From lei.chen@viktoria.se Mon Oct 27 06:03:26 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B21821A6F61 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 06:03:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.151 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.151 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ow7qF8tiwyTV for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 06:03:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bond.viktoria.chalmers.se (bond.viktoria.chalmers.se [129.16.69.24]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9786E1A0366 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 06:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.170.20.194] (octopussy.viktoria.chalmers.se [129.16.145.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bond.viktoria.chalmers.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 063A5ACC95; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:03:20 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CB7653C6-71FC-46A5-86FD-6918B4E08F51" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\)) From: Lei Chen In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:03:19 +0100 Message-Id: References: <544A6D4F.3060401@gmail.com> To: "Varadi , Andras (lesswire AG Ungarn)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/g_ePKhruK20ks6b7Z1oqPILGKbw Cc: Alexandru Petrescu , John Kenney , "its@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [geonet/its] FYI - ETSI ITS - work on cooperative cruise control, platooning X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "GeoNet BoF discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:17:04 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_CB7653C6-71FC-46A5-86FD-6918B4E08F51 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Dear all, Just a bit self introduction, we are working on the second = edition of cooperative driving challenge (www.gcdc.net) and somehow we = came across the same topics here.=20 Thanks to Alex to bring this topic up, it is very relevant for = the platoon applications.=20 Basically, like Andras and John said, V2V through DSRC will be = the first implementation for initial application of platooning. IP will = most probably be used for Day2 applications that require more data = communications, for example, video streaming between platoon vehicles or = LDM. It seems ETSI does this with an adaption layer (EN302 636-6-1, = TS102 636-6-1) for IPv6 to work with GeoNet. Anyway, GeoNet seems to be = in the protocol stack for C-ITS no matter what. If IPv6 is considered, = then the transport layer will be TCP/UDP over IPv6 over GeoNet, though I = am not sure about the protocol overhead. It is an interesting issue to = investigate. For platooning in Day1 applications, GeoNet (BTP and GeoNet for = transport) over G5 maybe the most appropriate choice at the current = stage because of the advantages of time delay. We are looking at = different implementations of GeoNet for potential deployment in GCDC. As = we work towards Day2 applications, IPv6 is potentially considered. INRIA = has been working on the implementation through CarGeo6. If you guys have = more information about the implementation now, it is very appreciated = that you share with us.=20 Also, if you know teams that want to show their implementations = of cooperative driving to the world, GCDC 2016 is the place to go. They = are free to contact us for registration or check www.gcdc.net for = details.=20 Best regards, Lei Lei Chen, PhD Senior Researcher Cooperative Systems Viktoria Swedish ICT AB Lindholmspiren 3A SE-417 56 G=C3=B6teborg, Sweden Tel: +46 76 777 1449 E-mail: lei.chen@viktoria.se www.viktoria.se Part of RISE > On 27 Oct 2014, at 12:22, Varadi , Andras (lesswire AG Ungarn) = wrote: >=20 > Dear Alex, John > =20 > I agree with John, but would like to point out that I think its likely = that we will need to extend EU Geonetworking (EN 302 636) to work over = IP (e.g. LTE) links also. > I think we will have such requirements for EU Day2 or 3 (2nd, Third = generation C-ITS) (example: update our Local Dynamic Map with a new = Warning message received over cellular connection (not G5/11p)) > =20 > =C3=9Cdv=C3=B6zlettel / Best regards, > Andr=C3=A1s V=C3=A1radi > =20 > Project Manager =E2=80=93 C2X/ITS Systems >=20 > Automotive & WLAN Group=20 > lesswire Hungary | Office: +36 23521 667 | Email: = Varadi@lesswire.com > =20 > From: its [mailto:its-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Kenney > Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 1:45 AM > To: Alexandru Petrescu > Cc: its@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [geonet/its] FYI - ETSI ITS - work on cooperative cruise = control, platooning > =20 > Hi Alex, > Thanks for sharing this. > =20 > I think many of us in the DSRC/Cooperative ITS community consider = these two applications to be a very natural fit for the technology. = Furthermore, my expectation is that the applications can work well with = one-hop V2V communication of the type that does not typically use IP. = So, I don't see a benefit of including IP. That doesn't mean it = wouldn't work, but as you know the DSRC community generally plans to use = a lighter weight protocol, WSMP, for applications that do not need IP. = I expect ETSI will think along similar lines. > =20 > Best Regards, > John > =20 > --=20 > John Kenney > Principal Researcher > Toyota InfoTechnology Center, USA > 465 Bernardo Avenue > Mountain View, CA 94043 > Tel: 650-694-4160. Mobile: 650-224-6644 > =20 > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Alexandru Petrescu = > = wrote: > Hello geonet/itsers, >=20 > ETSI ITS group is an SDO in Europe. They produced many standards in = the past for vehicular communications, e.g. ETSI ITS geo-networking = among others. >=20 > ETSI ITS recently agreed to start working on pre-standardization items = called "Cooperative Cruise Control" and "Platooning". These two = applications make automobiles (and trucks) talk to each other = continuously to keep speed constant. It helps relieve automobile driver = stress in jam situation or reduce gas consumption by 'platooning'. >=20 > Currently the focus is on requirements including communication = requirements. >=20 > In my oppinion, and this is why I forward it to this group, = establishing direct IP connections between vehicles may open paths for = exchanging IP data containing speed/location and trigger a control = process of adapting the speed. One already controls vehicles by sending = IP data to them, from the infrastructure. It would be a simple matter = for IP experts to send that same data from other vehicle, without going = to the infrastructure. >=20 > Thoughts? >=20 > Yours, >=20 > Alex >=20 > _______________________________________________ > its mailing list > its@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its = >=20 >=20 > =20 > _______________________________________________ > its mailing list > its@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its --Apple-Mail=_CB7653C6-71FC-46A5-86FD-6918B4E08F51 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="Apple-Mail=_35E75086-E48B-4643-B047-5BF19439339B" --Apple-Mail=_35E75086-E48B-4643-B047-5BF19439339B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Dear all,

         Just a bit self = introduction, we are working on the second edition of cooperative = driving challenge (www.gcdc.net) and somehow we came across the same topics = here. 

         Thanks to Alex to bring = this topic up, it is very relevant for the platoon = applications. 

         Basically, like Andras and = John said, V2V through DSRC will be the first implementation for initial = application of platooning.  IP will most probably be used for Day2 = applications that require more data communications, for example, video = streaming between platoon vehicles or LDM. It seems ETSI does this with = an adaption layer (EN302 636-6-1, TS102 636-6-1) for IPv6 to work with = GeoNet. Anyway, GeoNet seems to be in the protocol stack for C-ITS no = matter what. If IPv6 is considered, then the transport layer will be = TCP/UDP over IPv6 over GeoNet, though I am not sure about the protocol = overhead. It is an interesting issue to investigate.

      =   For platooning in Day1 applications, GeoNet (BTP and GeoNet for = transport) over G5 maybe the most appropriate choice at the current = stage because of the advantages of time delay. We are looking at = different implementations of GeoNet for potential deployment in GCDC. As = we work towards Day2 applications, IPv6 is potentially considered. INRIA = has been working on the implementation through CarGeo6. If you guys have = more information about the implementation now, it is very appreciated = that you share with us. 

        Also, if = you know teams that want to show their implementations of cooperative = driving to the world, GCDC 2016 is the place to go. They are free to = contact us for registration or check www.gcdc.net for details. 

       Best = regards,
Lei


Lei Chen, PhD
Senior = Researcher Cooperative Systems



Viktoria Swedish ICT AB
Lindholmspiren 3A
SE-417 56 G=C3=B6teborg, Sweden
Tel: +46 76 777 1449
E-mail: lei.chen@viktoria.se
www.viktoria.se

Part of RISE

On 27 Oct 2014, at 12:22, Varadi , Andras (lesswire AG = Ungarn) <Varadi@lesswire.com> wrote:

Dear Alex, John
 
I = agree with John, but would like to point out that I think its likely = that we will need to extend EU Geonetworking (EN 302 636) to work over = IP (e.g. LTE) links also.
I think we will have such requirements for EU Day2 or 3 = (2nd, Third generation C-ITS) (example: update our = Local Dynamic Map with a new Warning message received over cellular = connection (not G5/11p))
 
=C3=9Cdv=C3=B6zlettel / = Best regards,
   Andr=C3=A1s V=C3=A1radi
 
     Project Manager =E2=80=93 C2X/ITS = Systems

     = Automotive & WLAN Group 
     lesswire   Hungary | Office: +36 23521 667 | Email: Varadi@lesswire.com
 
From: its [mailto:its-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of John Kenney
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 = 1:45 AM
To: Alexandru Petrescu
Cc: its@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [geonet/its] FYI - ETSI = ITS - work on cooperative cruise control, platooning
 
Hi Alex,
Thanks for sharing this.
 
I think many of us in the DSRC/Cooperative ITS = community consider these two applications to be a very natural fit for = the technology.  Furthermore, my expectation is that the = applications can work well with one-hop V2V communication of the type = that does not typically use IP.  So, I don't see a benefit of = including IP.  That doesn't mean it wouldn't work, but as you know = the DSRC community generally plans to use a lighter weight protocol, = WSMP, for applications that do not need IP.  I expect ETSI will = think along similar lines.
 
Best Regards,
John
 
-- 
John Kenney
Principal = Researcher
Toyota InfoTechnology Center, USA
465 Bernardo Avenue
Mountain View, CA = 94043
Tel: 650-694-4160. Mobile: = 650-224-6644
 
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Alexandru Petrescu = <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello = geonet/itsers,

ETSI ITS group is an SDO in = Europe.  They produced many standards in the past for vehicular = communications, e.g. ETSI ITS geo-networking among others.

ETSI ITS recently agreed to start working on = pre-standardization items called "Cooperative Cruise Control" and = "Platooning".  These two applications make automobiles (and trucks) = talk to each other continuously to keep speed constant.  It helps = relieve automobile driver stress in jam situation or reduce gas = consumption by 'platooning'.

Currently the = focus is on requirements including communication requirements.

In my oppinion, and this is why I forward it = to this group, establishing direct IP connections between vehicles may = open paths for exchanging IP data containing speed/location and trigger = a control process of adapting the speed.  One already controls = vehicles by sending IP data to them, from the infrastructure.  It = would be a simple matter for IP experts to send that same data from = other vehicle, without going to the infrastructure.

Thoughts?

Yours,
Alex

_______________________________________________
its mailing list
its@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its


 
_______________________________________________
its mailing list
its@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

= --Apple-Mail=_35E75086-E48B-4643-B047-5BF19439339B Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline; filename=viktoria-logo.png Content-Type: image/png; name="viktoria-logo.png" Content-Id: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAK0AAAAyCAIAAACh/cyCAAAACXBIWXMAAAsTAAALEwEAmpwYAAAA IGNIUk0AAHolAACAgwAA+f8AAIDpAAB1MAAA6mAAADqYAAAXb5JfxUYAAA2nSURBVHja7F1peBRV uv7Oqeqq6iWddCcdEpKQEGQVNGyyiAMmQbZBUUFghHFGQGGc61zncUMRZbwqDhfBNSzDXBU3EHQE dSBAVEiuXIEREIcgCYsGOmbtvfZz5kc1SSeE0XDTPGjq/dVddarqVH3veb/lnOpGR9xdoJMDY8Rz nff2CaWyzHZyDhBRTCjIT39uGdV1oLSz3T7iOLm8vGregs7OAyAEO518zys67xNQVYQxBhOEdOa7 p4RQoCYPTAAAmDwwYfLAhMkDE7Fof76g60SWm7IOZLEApVRVqa5jQQCEqCxTTUM8j1jWaIx5HjAG AKooVNejxzIM4qJZO5HlpmANczwwuCmCiz0cAKimUUWJtuR5YBgAAEqJJGGOg3NXRDyPzBA4jjzQ dWyzOQrymaQkEomIBw+pXi9CiMvNxVarfPw4VVUutzvr8SgnTmj1DYzDYR08SK6oIP4AAPA9ezKu JEAIMNYbGpTKE8Zn4cp+jMMBGFNZlo9XkEgEsSwQghMShIF5SkUlCQYBY6qqrMdjG3YNtlp1X6N4 4Evd7weEEM/b8q5WT5/W6uoZp1MYmKdUniCBAJhUiItfoBQwzvzL6uzNG9KeWtLt7fVJv5pOIxES iSTeclOPz3ayyclUVTNeeiF35zbX7FlaoN45eVLuzm2WzEyqKCQcTnvmydxd23O2/i23+GPPQw8Q WaY6QRZL1ro1ubu252x5v8fukuyNbzFJiVTXiSRb867uUVIsXDWASBLVNNbj6b71vW5vvJr21JLs zRttI0eQSIQqiiUzo0dJsaOgQA/4hCv79Sgptg0ZTETRtG5c9IBqmiUr01GQX7tsefXiJVz3HCrJ 2G4nshwu+xxxHN+3D5Ek4ar+AGAdPAgBto8ZrZw6pRyvQBYLVVVstUmHvzo5ZSrC2PAjlBAAwFYh 8PHfq+7+XfLcOV0eX2QbOjTw4UeAWnCUqiqX3Y3v169q7nzfxne5nGzd58c2G1XVaANZIqCb5o+/ HiBERYmEw478650TJ5BQWPV6gWEQx8nlx/SGBvu1I/lePQHAv+Fda97VXE6udWCeuO+A7vMZjpwS HTud9muG2EcMMwb9uTNjEggoVaeC24sBAAlCGyVehAyTOydPso8coXqrtfr6aHwAAAC2kcPdN09z jC0wWGGaNl48QCyr1dVVP/oYdiZ02/hW768PJs24jYTDiGG0mhrx4GHr4IEJE8dr39f4Nr/PeFIS Cgv4K3qESj5pHtOywuVkd135XEbRS44xY+i5eBMAADMIGGS54HwP5nnpaPn3j//JOmRQ920f9v7q H/YRw2nM6HfNnJnx0vMpC+YDAKUmD+KZNyKGqVtddKzvVRVDRlBFdU6aSBUVAEAnoV0l9lHXOidN lI8eDZeW6o2NKff+noii9NURxEa9D7ZZxS8PftM/rzy3d+Nr67Hdfu68QDWVgN4k8m31FFNV9f7p ifLcPicKx7Mej3PSxGZFAahevORY3wFVdy0AAITMCDF++YKuY5fL89s7lMoToOvAMs3yi7F46DDi OL5Xz4a16zRvtVJ5wn7dKPmbCrmisik/pLrOuFz2/DHAspq3WvryYNN2PjfXdeOtrlkzAUD3NZ4f 6lNF5bK7JY+bIx48zKYkA8MQWYqVfxIKqYF6PRA0jRrnOJEQxmFPuWe+JSuL6kT3+RrffBvxPAAg gZeOHJHLj1kyM8SDhyiQ0J5S+3Wjwrt36/4AtlmNIECrqbWNGJa5djW22fybNn835y7EcUCpdtZr HTy429uvA6V1L74c+fz/sNVKJImqKhFFqqqAEOgam5aWuugRxDKI4+Rj3/g3v48sbLSkEQ5RVcFg AaITUaSqAgiZ1m2H0rdvHQqliOPY9HTEsqrXS3w+gwdGzQdbrYAQkSSgFBgGC4JRU2oyCeI4xLKA kBH0NcUH0YoQQqBpmt+POC5aBcIY83xslQnxvCU9DRBST39LZNmgESCEBYEoCmgaMAzmeSrL9MfN IpJwOPHmKd3eXt9pGSD98+iJGya0s46EEJVlpaISgAJmmkkAABjrkQgAIIwBIdB1PRhECMUqfJQi 0TM17zIObOZE01DWdT0Uip7QOEMkIn9z3AhajVKmwc7mZucdYiI+dWWMEYcvFEXGMqbF12h6+CMO bEm7VrsQw0BbjZubtXXdjgSlbTPsQtubBwG5nOubbPvEQNNIOGzcNhaENhJ9hIgoUllu33CkFLFs c/oQ8+z0UOgiTIVttqjL6GjUPLWU7ZLqnjenaUt49x7fOxsyXn7R984G9dvvPA/eT0SxeuGihAnj E8aNBYBQySf1a//adel/BT7e5t+yFdtsjMNBFIXKMtX1jOdXcDnZ9avW+DduIpKEHXbX7Fmu22cC xlptXfXiJ7TaOiA6EGrpmu6ee6d10EBDzOtWvpC66BGuW1a0G5/trlm+ImnaVNfs2+McJyoql52V OO1WQAixbHhPWbi0DFksLdrIcsLYQtvwodF88kdXJtSqM76Nm4CQJgJRXWeT3Sn33QsItcuiyGIJ frRNPHy4Vd86SA5o7YoXXHfMbkqC6tes0+vrAaHIvgPSkX96HryfKqr/vb9x3bsnjBurnvV+95u5 CTcUWrKzGbdb6NULCULDX1+1DhpoGzqEiiKT6Kx5+tmaZ55N+c97hQH9xS/2Vc1boNXVee77AwmF /O9stI8ZLVzZFyiEy8pO3XrbFXs+tWRmaNXVvg2bku9ZAOd40PDaG6HtO/XauqQZt13EjbeHB6rC 5eR0WbzI+FpreS6065PzeeCcON5919z29kP88qD/3c00Vl01jXG5uzz26EV4eu2sN7J/fzx4kDT1 lvqXi8T9B2wjRwCA3uiL/O/naU8+YUTB2CoYoojtdiTwAHBmwT1sWmrX51cAQNL0aUnTpwFAcPuO pGm3uufeadC9Ye06z/1/7PL4IgBIum0q1bTG19/w3PcHwBhZrcl3z00YPw4AlFOnK64ZqZw8acnM AIbBdluTn9Xr6iOlZenLlta/UiQe+Idt+LD41pFi6zYQ+zm2jaZd5EDrUCceJ/B9+/C9ewW2FUfV uLSMKMq5YnasKAHi+fqi1eGyvVnr1mK7rVUHm7tICFFV1pPStI/rnkMliaoqwhgoba7R2O2I49oc FYHiHYDAPe9OS05O4IOtca8n/nQQx7qyc/Kk4Ed/N1LZwJat9hHD2dTU1jQQhNDOku+XPNl15X8L A/r/gCPD6LyQsznfoarSlODpgQBi2xC5wAdbbNeOxFZr4k03+rdspbIS/3zhx5tC07wPLpSPlje5 0n+TgxB/IDY4MNy85vWemjK1dewYCrnn3pk0c7rx1fvQI9Khw7EZLGIYqbwcCUKc7stRWFC7bIV4 6LAwoH94T2nqwofayg4om5zMOBPVb7/7fxR3ELJYzvzHfd6FjyGW0X0+58TxQt5VrVqpZ85G9n6R WfQSACRMGFfzzNJwWZkj//rLhQdASGTv3vDne7Fg/eFbxhgJQgvRw5iIYrB4R+vqthS0Xz+6ObD4 Yl/w009bXSJasIoPrHlXc7k5oR27qCTpgaCjML+NMSDLwqA85+RJJydP4fv2Sbz5pn9bqG2dcwEl QCkApbru+vUsx+hfBD7Y2rj+zdSFD+IW/EYAEN69Wz17tu6VosY336K6rtXWBXfsvJx4AIAFAdvs +KKHJkLYZjsvbVFiA0AkCNhqw1YrXEI4b5wc+PAj6dgx2zVDLRkZbVtXFB2F+Z4H/lg1b77Qtw/f p/eFtBBbLFptXdMG5eQpJAjIYqE6AUodo69LGH+DI3+M9PXX3kcXd//wg5Y0AP+779mGDkkoKCCi iAQBVC348fYujz/Wrsfe6d9nukge/LJ22fLwnj1Zr78aqwFElAwHT8Jhw0mnPbFY3Lf/9Izbe5QU M273uaqo2DSzihjGPW9OzdI/U1kWBvSP7D9Qv2pt+rNPAwAQnQRDVNUMhct45cWKUb+oeWpp6qMP g05IOIJYVj3rDe7alblmlZGJAIA0tuD48FHhTz8zsgyTB3EE37tX8vy71DNnEwqbMwXr4EGWtC4A gDhL4i1TogKAcUbRy9UPLwrvLnVOudFomXjTL40FOwZSH36ASXb7N70XKvmESUzM/Msq169mAAC2 O5JmTLNkRvVG6H9lxvMrw3tKiShaMromTZ/KuN1qVVXi1KkJE8Y3961f35Tf/44E21d/M3lwUf6K ZdOefrLVRtftM6NKb7V2Xbm8OQ/Mye72znqICQLSlz3byjUk3z0v+e55rW2T6slcu6rFJe6Y7fr1 LIOImWuKAID1pGStW92ibwwTlROTB5cjcAfNe7WqH3TQdJq5bseEyQMTl8gvUABCO7jMS6i5Gvkn xgOqalRRaYcuCKCgXGhqw8TlyAPEsunL/0z8/o5df0FVle/dy7TcT0cPMLYNG2o+4p9jnBib/Fzo HQHz7dKfuR4gTEVZrTpjrA/Wfb42cmKE9YZGvaGBhCNx7ztCAEBkGZlLUi8lD7DAS0eOVI4pNGxA I5HzZ3ew3VZftKrhf167ZL9BR4LBFsumTcRfDxBVVa229tzIx224AIT0UBgu4UtFyHjxwcQljRMR +sF5/bb5YeJnFSeaMHlgwuSBCZMHJkwedI5n0KkfAsIYAWJNEpBAQD5e0Xl/d7+ykhKCzP/hMP+H g8ryvwYAKbcbZlgq5bsAAAAASUVORK5CYII= --Apple-Mail=_35E75086-E48B-4643-B047-5BF19439339B-- --Apple-Mail=_CB7653C6-71FC-46A5-86FD-6918B4E08F51--