Subject: Re: [nemo] Aeronautics Requirements

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:14:02 +0900 (JST)

Dear all,

Thanks William from bringing this thread to this list. Actually, I was
expecting you would question about requirements much earlier. This
discussion was very interesting and brought a lot of information. Let
me comment on it.

From: Greg Daley <[email-masked]>
> If we have a list of interested parties/documents,
> should we approach a group/groups requirements doc,
> maybe a bit similar to the 3GPP-IPv6wg reqs?
> Should this be accounted for in the base reqs?
> 
> I'm inclined to believe that the reqs should not
> be combined with the basic NEMO reqs, since we're
> not sure that the application areas will all be covered
> with basic NEMO (low-latency communications for example).

I think the aeronautic community should check to what extend
draft-ietf-nemo-requirements meets the aeronautic requirements, and
make sure affordable requirements are present in basic. For instance,
multihoming is an affordable one. On the other hand, QoS is probably
not an affordable one (in basic).

So, it would be a shame if draft-ietf-nemo-requirements doesn't
mention about an important and affordable aeronautic requirement. For
other very specific requirements, this is an other issue.

[Alex] 
> I tend to agree, so maybe we should remove ITS from
> draft-requirements, but try to find out which are the scenarios that
> are being considered both by ITS and by aeronautics and by 3gpp that
> do need IP addresses and IP connectivity.  And since William came up
> with such an aeronautics scenario, we should consider it in more
> detail.

In ITS also, yes, IP technologies are considered, vehicles will soon
contain tens of IP devices, and thus entire in-vehicle networks will
appear. See for instance ISO TC 204 WG16 who is woking on the M5
architecture (all IPv6) and should most likely be interested in what
NEMO is going to provide [instead of basing their specification on
Mobile IPv6 to provide Internet connectivity to an IPv6 in-vehicle
network, which is not supposed to work as you all know - otherwise
NEMO WG wouldn't exist]. Also, see work done in Japan in InternetITS
(http://www.internetits.org) and InternetCAR
(http://www.sfc.wide.ad.jp/InternetCAR/) projects.

ITS is cited in draft-iietf-nemo-requirements as an instance, but
there are currently no ITS specific requirements in the draft. If that
was the case, the draft would list one-liners about safety, QoS, fast
handover, which is not the case. So, what should be removed and why ?

Both aeronautic and ITS do have specific requirements. I think it
would be useful for us to know what ones. The problem is that people
in the aeronautic and ITS communities do not speak the same language
as us. We first need to establish a cross communication to share our
understanding of the problems and needs. This is not an easy task. In
addition, requirements from those communities, once formalized, are
most likely to span a number of working groups, not only NEMO. So,
this must probably be dealt with at a higher level at the IETF. This
remind me about the requirements from the cellular industry a while
ago in mobiliity working groups. How was this dealt with ?

Thierry,

PS: A few years ago, Eurocontrol has investigated IPv6 mobility to
carry air control traffic. I don't know if they carried their work,
but they would probably have interesting discussions to share with us
on this list and particularly on this thread. I guess Willian knows
about their work.