Re: [STDS-802-11] Questions -- EPD for IEEE 802.11 5.9GHz Operations
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
Marc,
It was a long plane ride home ... had to do something to fill the hours!
Hope you enjoyed the lighter parts! ;^))))
On a more serious vein, I am working to come up with the kind of assurances
I think you (and others) will appreciate, and I should have some news on
that before Atlanta. Thanks for bringing the issue to the "front burner".
Your comments caused me to think "outside the box" ... thanks!!!!
Cheers,
RR
> -----Original Message-----
> From: *** IEEE stds-802-11 List *** [mailto:STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Marc Emmelmann
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 5:22 AM
> To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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
> __________________________________________________________________________
> _____
_______________________________________________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________________________________________