Subject: [nemo] RE: IETF NEMO inputs

From: "Davis, Terry L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 09:12:29 -0700

All

The document looks great.  My comments are mostly communication usage
expansion as we look at new concepts coming from the airlines and
airports.

Final comments are below.

Wes, my thanks to you for serving as the document editor!

Take care
Terry

===========================================================
Section 1 Paragraph 3 "For decades...
This paragraph needs to make it clear that at least the aircraft will
have a minimum of three networks on it and will under NO circumstances
consist of a single network nor will the multiple networks be provided
by a single service provider.  Multiple onboard independent networks for
commercial aircraft are required in order for the aircraft to comply
with regulatory and legal requirements.

Section 2.1.1 Suggested sentences for the last paragraph following first
sentence:
"...requests and grants.  Future ATS communications are likely to
include longer messages and higher message frequencies for postional
awareness communication of all vehicles in motion at the airport and all
aircraft within a thirty mile range during flight.  In addition, these
communications are likely to include vehicle trajectories as well as
absolute position data."

Section 2.1.2
Airline message trafficing may include detailed electronic passenger
manifests, passenger ticketing/re-booking traffic, and complete
electronic baggage manifests.  When bandwidth is available, though
mainly at the terminal, "airplane health information" data transfers
into the 10 or low hundreds of megabytes are likely; and in future, it
is expected that the In-Flight Entertain systems (IFE) may receive movie
refreshes running in the gigabytes.

Section 2.1.3
We do know that several service providers are planning on offering
passenger Internet access during flight as DSL type rates, just as
Connexion-by-Boeing did.  In addition, several airlines have plans to
offer onboard cellular service to their passengers (not saying I like it
but notheless...); some of these may utilize VoIP services.

Section 4.1
We may want to note that large airports will be especially challenged by
the RO configurations due to the number of airline involved, the number
of service providers, and the high volume new ROs as aircraft arrive and
depart.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wesley Eddy [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 7:44 AM
> To: [email-masked]; Davis, Terry L;
[email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: Kerczewski, Robert J. (GRC-PRA0); [email-masked]; Gib
Winter;
> [email-masked]
> Subject: IETF NEMO inputs
> 
> Gentlemen:
> 
> This is a friendly reminder that the cutoff for submitting updated
IETF
> Internet-Drafts is the morning of July 9th.  Attached is the working
> copy of the draft update that I plan to submit on NEMO Route
Optimization
> requirements for aeronautics.  I believe this will soon become a
working
> group item of the new MEXT working group, after the Chicago IETF
meeting
> this month, as it is on the proposed charter with November 2007 as the
> target date for submission to the RFC Editor for publication as an
RFC.
> By December 2007, an initial draft solution to meet those requirements
> is intended to become a MEXT working group item, with later
publication
> as an RFC after approval by the working group.
> 
> If you have any inputs, please provide them by the 4 PM EST on the 5th
> so that I have enough time to include them before the submission
cutoff.
> Even a simple ACK that says it looks okay as-is would be useful.
Sorry
> if this catches some of you at an inopportune time due to US holidays.
> Thanks for your help!
> 
> I've also been coordinating with the automotive (C2CCC) industry
people
> who are also looking for a NEMO RO solution, and planning at least a
> short informal meeting with them in Chicago for any of us from aero
that
> make it to the IETF meeting.  They seem to be at about the same stage
of
> work that we are (RO requirements understood, but no in-depth
evaluation
> of potential RO solutions and downselection has been made yet).  We're
> planning to share results as they develop, and hopefully find a
solution
> that's suitable for both industries.  I plan to similarly coordinate
> with the "personal mobile router" folks, if it seems to make sense.
> 
> If anyone else from the ICAO group is interested in attending the IETF
> meeting, you can contact me for some details, tips, and information.
> Will and I, at least, will be there.  I would highly recommend reading
> the "Tao of the IETF" (RFC 4677) before going:
> http://www.ietf.org/tao.html
> 
> --
> Wesley M. Eddy
> Verizon Federal Network Systems

---

From: Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 13:20:27 -0400

> Final comments are below.

Thanks; I'll work these changes in today, and they'll show up in the 01
version that I'll submit before the IETF cut-off.