Hi Daniel,
Here is the revision of IPWAVE PS Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-28
Here is the revision of IPWAVE PS Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-28
I attach a revision letter to explain how Chris and I have addressed your comments
on the revision.
Thanks.
Best Regards,
Paul
Thanks.
Best Regards,
Paul
On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 4:40 AM Daniel Migault <daniel.migault=40ericsson.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
-- clicking too fast
Reviewer: Daniel Migault
Review result: Has Issues
Hi,
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.
Please find my comments below:
1. Introduction
Vehicular networking studies have mainly focused on improving safety
and efficiency, and also enabling entertainment in vehicular
networks. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US
allocated wireless channels for Dedicated Short-Range Communications
(DSRC) [DSRC] in the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) with
the frequency band of 5.850 - 5.925 GHz (i.e., 5.9 GHz band). DSRC-
based wireless communications can support vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V),
vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and vehicle-to-everything (V2X)
networking. The European Union (EU) allocated radio spectrum for
safety-related and non-safety-related applications of ITS with the
frequency band of 5.875 - 5.905 GHz, as part of the Commission
Decision 2008/671/EC [EU-2008-671-EC].
<mglt>
I am wondering US/EU covers all spectrum allocation worldwide ?
</mglt>
3.2. V2I
The emergency communication between accident vehicles (or emergency
vehicles) and a TCC can be performed via either IP-RSU or 4G-LTE
networks. The First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet)
[FirstNet] is provided by the US government to establish, operate,
and maintain an interoperable public safety broadband network for
safety and security network services, e.g., emergency calls. The
construction of the nationwide FirstNet network requires each state
in the US to have a Radio Access Network (RAN) that will connect to
the FirstNet's network core. The current RAN is mainly constructed
using 4G-LTE for the communication between a vehicle and an
infrastructure node (i.e., V2I) [FirstNet-Report], but it is expected
that DSRC-based vehicular networks [DSRC] will be available for V2I
and V2V in the near future.
<mglt>
Is this use case restricted to the US or do we have any equivalent in EU for
example ? <mglt>
3.3. V2X
The use case of V2X networking discussed in this section is for a
pedestrian protection service.
<mglt>
I do have an issue with such use case - of course if my understanding is
correct. My understanding from the description is that the use case explains
how pedestrian can advertise its presence to a vehicle so avoid the vehicle to
hit that pedestrian. Such assumption does not seem to me acceptable as not
everyone has a phone, and their security - from a vehicle perspective - MUST
NOT be provided by such a mechanism as it would given a false sense of
security. If a vehicle is not able to detect a pedestrian unless this
pedestrian has a working smartphone with a specific application, the problem is
bigger and out of scope of the IETF. I can also see that in some countries, it
will become the pedestrian's fault if it is hit without its application. As I
understand it, I find this use case extremely dangerous, so my request would be
to remove it or if I misunderstood it to clarify its scope. <mglt>
________________________________________
From: secdir <secdir-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Daniel Migault via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 2:36 PM
To: secdir@xxxxxxxx
Cc: last-call@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking.all@xxxxxxxx; its@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [secdir] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-27
Reviewer: Daniel Migault
Review result: Has Issues
1. Introduction
Vehicular networking studies have mainly focused on improving safety
and efficiency, and also enabling entertainment in vehicular
networks. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US
allocated wireless channels for Dedicated Short-Range Communications
(DSRC) [DSRC] in the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) with
the frequency band of 5.850 - 5.925 GHz (i.e., 5.9 GHz band). DSRC-
based wireless communications can support vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V),
vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and vehicle-to-everything (V2X)
networking. The European Union (EU) allocated radio spectrum for
safety-related and non-safety-related applications of ITS with the
frequency band of 5.875 - 5.905 GHz, as part of the Commission
Decision 2008/671/EC [EU-2008-671-EC].
<mglt>
I am wondering US/EU covers all spectrum allocation worldwide ?
</mglt>
3.2. V2I
The emergency communication between accident vehicles (or emergency
vehicles) and a TCC can be performed via either IP-RSU or 4G-LTE
networks. The First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet)
[FirstNet] is provided by the US government to establish, operate,
and maintain an interoperable public safety broadband network for
safety and security network services, e.g., emergency calls. The
construction of the nationwide FirstNet network requires each state
in the US to have a Radio Access Network (RAN) that will connect to
the FirstNet's network core. The current RAN is mainly constructed
using 4G-LTE for the communication between a vehicle and an
infrastructure node (i.e., V2I) [FirstNet-Report], but it is expected
that DSRC-based vehicular networks [DSRC] will be available for V2I
and V2V in the near future.
<mglt>
Is this use case restricted to the US or do we have any equivalent in EU for
example ? <mglt>
3.3. V2X
The use case of V2X networking discussed in this section is for a
pedestrian protection service.
<mglt>
I do have an issue with such use case - of course if my understanding is
correct. My understanding from the description is that the use case explains
how pedestrian can advertise its presence to a vehicle so avoid the vehicle to
hit that pedestrian. Such assumption does not seem to me acceptable as not
everyone has a phone, and their security - from a vehicle perspective - MUST
NOT be provided by such a mechanism as it would given a false sense of
security. If a vehicle is not able to detect a pedestrian unless this
pedestrian has a working smartphone with a specific application, the problem is
bigger and out of scope of the IETF. I can also see that in some countries, it
will become the pedestrian's fault if it is hit without its application. As I
understand it, I find this use case extremely dangerous, so my request would be
to remove it or if I misunderstood it to clarify its scope. <mglt>
_______________________________________________
secdir mailing list
secdir@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
wiki: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/sec/wiki/SecDirReview
_______________________________________________
its mailing list
its@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
Attachment:
Revision-Letter-on-IPWAVE-PS-Document-28-2022-03-30-v1.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
