Re: [STDS-802-11] Questions -- EPD for IEEE 802.11 5.9GHz Operations
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
Richard,
many thanks for taking the time to reply in such detail.
Best,
M.
On 12 Nov 2014, at 03:00, Richard Roy <dickroy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Marc,
>
> Thanks for your interest in this topic. I've tried to answer your questions
> as best I can below.
>
> Cheers,
>
> RR
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marc Emmelmann [mailto:marc.emmelmann@xxxxxx]
>> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 12:01 PM
>> To: dickroy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Questions -- EPD for IEEE 802.11 5.9GHz Operations
>>
>> Dick,
>>
>> many thanks for your presentation you gave today in the dot11
>> WG (https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/14/11-14-1521-01-000m-epd-for-
>> ieee802-11-5-9ghz-operations.pptx).
>>
>> I support in general the optimization you propose to be made given that we
>> have a full understanding
>> on the potential implications, and given that are are none causing
>> compatibility issues
>> with certified or deployed equipment.
>
> [RR>] To date there are NO regulations by governmental entities requiring
> compliance/conformance to any standard for ITS communications in the 5.9GHz
> band. Thus, it is not possible to have regulatory-compliant deployed
> equipment in those bands. The prototypes in the field today are compliant to
> various versions of standards, and in some cases those are drafts!
>
>>
>> I have some initial questions.
>>
>> (1) Involved (government) entities
>>
>> (1a) Which (government) entities are involved in setting the rules
>> and certifying
>> equipment for 5.9GHz operation? I do not only ask this for the US,
>> I would like
>> to see an overview for all possible involved entities (Americas,
>> Europe, Asia, etc.)
>
> [RR>] I am not a regulatory or certification expert, however I'll give you
> what I know. In the US, NHTSA is responsible for setting rules that apply
> to vehicle safety-related matters and have stated their intention to make a
> ruling regarding 5.9GHz V2V communications in September 2015. There is an
> ANPRM that has completed the comment period and the comments are being
> processed by NHTSA and the US DoT. The intended output of the process is a
> rulemaking that will point to a set of standards that will be "mandated in
> all vehicles." In the US, the FCC makes rules related to spectrum and its
> usage in general (e.g. Part 90 rules in the 5.9GHz band state that ASTM-2213
> must be complied with regarding the PHY and FCC 06-110 states channel 172 is
> to be used solely for safety of life and property services).
>
> As far as equipment certification goes, in the US there is a consortium of
> entities called OmniAir that has gotten some funding to develop test and
> certification procedures for 5.9 equipment. A notice of inquiry as recently
> posted in the federal register I believe, asking if there were other
> entities interested inparticipating in such a testing program. In Europe,
> ETSI as you know claims to be THE test house for such things, however,
> ISO/CEN has recently started getting involved.
>
> Japan currently has no 5.9GHz V2V program. They are thinking they'll do V2V
> safety at 700MHz, and that may change.
>
> China intends to test 5.9GHz V2V safety soon, however, there are no
> frequency allocations yet, and no regulations I am aware of.
>
> Australia, New Zealand, Korea and Canada are "following what the US does",
> however there are no regulations in place yet. That said, Korea has been
> running 5.9GHz V2V and V2I tests for several years now.
>
> South America is watching and will most likely follow what the US and Europe
> do. I say "do" because there is an EU-US Task Force (which now includes
> Australia and to some extent Japan) that is working feverishly to harmonize
> the standards related to usage of these bands (and I have participated in
> that as well).
>
> Africa ... ???? They'll probably follow ITU recommendations, and we (ISO
> and IEEE) are looking to get all the standards we've developed considered as
> ITU Recommendations. If that does happen, then Africa would be following as
> well.
>
> Antarctica, Greenland (they'll probably follow Europe since they're Danish),
> the Arctic north ... I'm not sure the penguins or polar bears care that
> much.
>
> Russia, Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania ... they'll do whatever they
> want! And if I were a vendor of 5.9 radio units, I wouldn't be banking on
> that market for my survival.
>
> The middle east is too busy blowing up cars to worry about outfitting them
> with devices to prevent collisions. When the conflict ends, there will be no
> more oil, hence no more industry. Cars, along with pretty much everything
> else invented since the industrial revolution will cease to function,
> including 5.9 GHz 802.11p radios.
>
> India, Indonesia, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Burma, Vietnam ... no clue. They
> participate minimally, if at all, in any of the global standards meetings
> related to ITS.
>
> I have no idea what the protectorates and nations in the South Pacific are
> thinking. And as Clarke Gable said to Vivian Leigh, "Frankly my dear, I
> don't give a damn!" (Gone With the Wind, Margaret Mitchell, last century)
>
> The Easter Islands are Ecuadorian and will probably do what Ecuador does.
> Since there are more big stone statues than people there, I'm not sure it
> matters.
>
> If I've missed a country or two, I apologize.
>
>>
>> (1b) Has any of those entities already approved a rule set /
>> requirement document
>> that cites 802.11p (as standing today)?
>
> [RR>] THere is a European Norm (EN) EN 302 663 that points to the deprecated
> 802.2 standard as well as 802.11-2012 as normative. These would need to be
> revised and I am working on that. In the US, there are stated intentions to
> do so as I mentioned above, however, there are no "approved rule sets" yet.
>
>>
>> (1c) Are there any testing / certification programs that test agains
>> 802.11p (as it stands
>> today) for 5.9GHz operations?
>
> [RR>] Nothing formal that I am aware of. However, as I stated above,
> OmniAir and ETSI are currently testing prototype implementations against
> various versions of the (draft) standards. They are both well aware that the
> standards are subject to revision!
>
>>
>> ad 1) I understand that it might be impossible to get an official response
>> from all involved
>> (government) entities that states "we have not approved any
>> requirement that points
>> to 802.11p as it exists today"; but I would like to see a complete,
>> documented analysis of the
>> status quo
>
> [RR>] So would I, however it is very unlikely to happen unless someone pays
> for it, and I have no idea who that would be. Probably the best you are
> going to get is by querying people like me who have been attending the large
> number of ITS related standards meetings around the world, and there are
> only a few of those.
>
>> to make a profound decision on the suggested changes.
>
> [RR>] Not sure what you mean by a "profound decision". Just as every 802.11
> device on the market today would have to be reprogrammed to do FILS, those
> prototype ITS 5.9GHz systems (there are several thousand such) in the field
> today will have to be reprogrammed to include all the security-related
> functions that will be mandated if nothing else. Making the change to EPD is
> trivial in comparison. The change from LPD to EPD is a simple decision to
> get it right while we have the chance! Once automobiles start rolling off
> the production line with embedded radio systems that use LPD, there will be
> NO chance to change ... period. And this will impact ALL portable devices
> (smartphones) built to save lives as well. All of 802 will be migrating to
> EPD over the next few years, and ITS communications will be chained to LPD
> which will be very costly! You might be interested to know that in ALL
> aircraft built today, the communication system used for ground
> communications is an AM radio!!!
>>
>> (2) Deployed system
>>
>> (2a) Are there any (known) deployments that build upon 802.11p as it
>> exists today?
>
> [RR>] NO. There are only trial projects (SafetyPilot, CVIS, and a few others
> planned).
>>
>> (3) Involved product manufacturers.
>>
>> (2a) Are you aware of any manufacturer / implementer that has
>> (pending) products
>> that implement 802.11p as it exists today?
>
> [RR>] Yes. In no particular order, Arada Systems, Savari Networks, DENSO,
> lesswire, Imtech, Kapsch-Trafficom, Q-Free, Cohda Wireless, Commsignia,
> Ranix, Autotalks, ITRI, to name most (if not all) of them. I suspect a few
> others will be entering the market soon, however, I don't want to speculate
> at this point. You can probably guess who they are.
>
>>
>> ad 2 & 3) I know you already stated that you are personally not aware of
>> any such deployment /
>> manufacturers. I just added (2) & (3) for other potentially involved
>> decision maker to check
>> themselves and consider this issue.
>
> [RR>] I have asked most of the companies in the list above to make the
> change from LPD to EPD and let me know how it went. To date, the four I
> mentioned have implemented the change in less than several hours and
> successfully tested communications between transmitting and receiving
> devices and given wireshark output as "proof". Several others have stated
> their intent to do so, and others have simply said it's a good idea, easily
> accomplished, and they're prepared to do it.
>
>>
>>
>> Answering all three points will also help to identify the set of entities
>> that should be actively
>> informed if 802.11 adopts the changes you propose as they will break
>> backward compatibility.
>
> [RR>] For the most part, they are already aware. I did not make this
> proposal to IEEE 802 without first "making the rounds". I have been all
> over the world in many forums promoting this change. The ONLY pushback I
> have ever gotten is from people who say it's "too late to make the change",
> and these are the SAME people who intend on mandating changes to the current
> prototypes that will seriously break backward compatibility requiring
> substantial changes. A bit disingenuous in my opinion!
>
>>
>>
>> Many thanks in advance for kindly considering my questions.
>
> [RR>] Great questions. Thanks for asking! They essentially made me
> transcribe what I said during the meeting, with a few additions (:^)) and
> that's probably a good thing!
>
> Cheers,
>
> RR
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Marc
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------------
>> Marc Emmelmann
>> e-mail: emmelmann@xxxxxxxx web: http://www.emmelmann.org
>>
>> IEEE 802.11 TGai Vice-Chair
>>
>> Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.de/citations?user=_EfkmxcAAAAJ
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Emmelmann
e-mail: emmelmann@xxxxxxxx web: http://www.emmelmann.org
IEEE 802.11 TGai Vice-Chair
Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.de/citations?user=_EfkmxcAAAAJ
_______________________________________________________________________________
If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect.
Instead, go to http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11 and then press the LEAVE button.
If there is no LEAVE button here, try http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-RO.
Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html
_______________________________________________________________________________