Subject: [geonet/its] Minutes of the geonet/its teleconference 6 September 2014

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 06:48:42 +0200

Minutes of the geonet/its teleconference
6 September 2014
18h-19h CET
Participants: Dimitri Papadimitriou (DP), Alex Petrescu (AP), Richard 
Roy (RR)

RR presented an overview of his thoughts on recent geonet/its 
postings/activities and suggestions on possible directions for this 
effort.  The key observation is that there seem to be at least two 
(possibly more?) distinct classes of use cases involving the exchange of 
information between a sender and one or more receivers in  a volume of 
space over a specific time interval:

1) geo-dissemination (broadcast/multicast/groupcast) to a specific 
temporal-geographic (Dt,Dx,Dy,Dz) region; and
2) geo-discovery of one or more paths between a source and one or more 
destinations (unicast or groupcast) for the purposes of setting up 
(reliable) real-time exchanges (sessions).

There are many use cases in ITS that rely on dissemination of packets to 
certain geographical areas, including V2V  communications for relaying 
road conditions (e.g. black ice warning) to nearby (or not so nearby) 
vehicles. While such applications are of high priority in ITS, it's not 
necessarily clear that they all require the use of IP networking.  Once 
the information arrives at the destination, the job is done.  Attempting 
to discover an IP path to the destination, then attempting to send 
packets using that path is inefficient and slow.

There are also many ITS use cases that involve setting up reliable links 
between nodes in geographic regions, most notably the creation of 
communication links during disasters where communication between public 
service agencies to nodes in the affected areas is a paramount 
importance (e.g. "connect me with any or all police cars in the area 
affected by the disaster!").  In such situations, the objective is to 
establish one or more "reliable" paths between a source and 
destination(s) over a potentially heterogeneous set of path segments, 
some of which may use IP and others not.  This seems to involve a 
preliminary "geo-discovery" phase where IP paths are configured using 
geographic information to set up the appropriate paths and to identify 
the specified recipients.

The obvious question is: are there more distinct classes than just 
geo-dissemination and geo-discovery?

The issue of how to move the effort forward was then brought up.  DP 
expressed and motivated several worries about lack of activity on the 
email list.  He also made process comments with respect to RG vs WG, and 
with respect to Chairmanship.

AP made comments about what it takes to drive a BoF, about a potential 
necessity of co-chairing, about necessity of co-chairmanship from the 
industry.  He also commented that Sept 25th is the deadline for BoF 
requests for Honolulu.

RR commented that various governmental stakeholders around the globe 
would be interested in seeing both capabilities deployed in a timely 
manner as transportation safety and efficiency is significantly improved 
with these capabilities.

The possibility of holding several (possibly three) sessions at the 
Honolulu meeting to discuss these issues and to decide on a way forward 
was discussed and thought to be a good idea.  The consensus was that 
these should be formal meetings rather than informal gatherings to 
generate serious interest and get broader participation.

Alex

---
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active.
http://www.avast.com

---

From: "Papadimitriou, Dimitri (Dimitri)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 10:45:43 +0000

Hi Alex,

Two points, the first related to the number of geoloc dimensions model i) logical space -> physical space, model ii) physical space (directly). We should leave the possibility to exploit both.

Second I would like to clarify the statement: "He also made process comments with respect to RG vs WG, and with respect to Chairmanship." 

i) in case of RG we ought to increase academic involvement (reason also why meetings have to become more formal/on IETF agenda ... inviting people to attend informal meetings at the bar (famous Bar BoFs), while they would have to travel for about 24hours/one-way is simply not realistic --some consider this as a measure of interest this is imho increasing the entry barrier to a point that only a few can afford nowadays and limiting it de-facto to an industry-driven effort.

ii) we are still on road toward building a group which sits in a grey zone in terms of appointments; those of YVR were appointed around formation of WG with a specific scope, as the latter is evolving and YVR plans are being revisited we should see if this leadership structure still fits e.g. see if in complement tighter ties with domain leaders wouldn't help increasing credibility and traction (at least during first stage of formation).

Many thanks,
-dimitri.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: its [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 6:49 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [geonet/its] Minutes of the geonet/its teleconference 6 September
> 2014
> 
> Participants: Dimitri Papadimitriou (DP), Alex Petrescu (AP), Richard Roy
> (RR)
> 
> to discover an IP path to the destination, then attempting to send packets
> using that path is inefficient and slow.
> 
> service agencies to nodes in the affected areas is a paramount importance
> (e.g. "connect me with any or all police cars in the area affected by the
> disaster!").  In such situations, the objective is to establish one or
> more "reliable" paths between a source and
> destination(s) over a potentially heterogeneous set of path segments, some
> of which may use IP and others not.  This seems to involve a preliminary
> "geo-discovery" phase where IP paths are configured using geographic
> information to set up the appropriate paths and to identify the specified
> recipients.
> 
> The obvious question is: are there more distinct classes than just geo-
> dissemination and geo-discovery?
> 
> RR commented that various governmental stakeholders around the globe would
> be interested in seeing both capabilities deployed in a timely manner as
> transportation safety and efficiency is significantly improved with these
> capabilities.
> 
> was discussed and thought to be a good idea.  The consensus was that these
> should be formal meetings rather than informal gatherings to generate
> serious interest and get broader participation.
> 
> Alex
> 
> ---
> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant
> parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active.
> http://www.avast.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its