Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01
Le 24/04/2015 21:22, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : I am still not convinced. At home I have LTE. LTE can be 3G if it is somewhat degraded and 3G is also available, so no reason for inter technology handoff. YEs there is reason. At home one may prefer the cheap 802.11ac instead of 3G. The bandwith improvement is huge. I am also concerned on some other MN ids proposed like RFid, what is the assumption there? Is it that the sensor node will have Mobile IP client? To that I say, give me a break. Break. But the MN-ID as RFID does not necessarily mean it runs a MIP client. In some deployment of buses the RFID is on the passenger and the mobile router in the bus running Mobile IP uses another MN-ID form. YEt they authenticate to the same server, using MN-ID concept. I think yes, MN-ID should be independent of Mobile IP, but sometimes work together. Alex Behcet Behcet On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Le 23/04/2015 19:11, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Le 22/04/2015 18:06, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : Hi Alex, On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Le 16/04/2015 06:58, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : Folks, The adoption call for this I-D has ended. There is a clear concensus to adopt the I-D as a working group item. I support its adoption. We have been working with an identifier specific to automobiles to use to realize access control. Identifying an entire set of IP nodes deployed in a vehicle is different than identifying an end-user like address@realm. We looked for such an identifier and believe the VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) be a good candidate. One would consider using one type, like type 40, to encode the VIN or parts of it, into an MN-ID. The questions to the group are the following: - is VIN considered private information? (in deployments it is private to a certain extent, but publicly avaliable to cameras or in public databases to another extent). - is the MN-ID type 40 ok for it. - is one type sufficient or should there be subtypes. What is your model here in providing Internet access to the car? As you may know, operators in US are deploying systems that connect the car to their LTE network upstream and downstream is the passengers in the car that access over Wi-Fi. With LTE, you get mobility support which is based on fixed anchoring. I cc'ed to Raj who works on these types of technologies. The ID there is the IMSI. I don't think vin is used. The model of Internet access to the cars for cars currently on market in Europe is the same - the LTE technology is used, using the IMSI as an identifier. However, that does not use MN-ID, is only IPv4, is not WiFi and does not resist to cellular generation upgrades to 5G and beyond. I don't understand the handover scenario. I think you are mixing the car and the passengers in the car. LTE is available on a large geography, why should you handover the upstream traffic to Wi-Fi? When the car arrives home it connects to the WiFi available in home, thus handing over from LTE. This is a sold use-case at e.g. Tesla. The WiFi hotspot can be the one deployed in-house, in-garage, or the WiFi offered by the electrical recharging stations. Other manufacturers propose scenarios in which car's WiFi antenna switches from being an in-car hotspot to being a Client to outside wifi. Some consider 802.11p (wifi for vehicles) to be deployed along highways and cars to perform handovers between these 802.11p access points. Next time on highway scan for WiFi - one is surprised by the number of hotspots driving around, even though often they use portals. There are many commercially considered scenarios involving WiFi handovers for cars. Alex Behcet Newer models will feature IPv6 in addition to IPv4, WiFi handover from LTE to house's hotspot, continuous sessions, and over-the-air software update for cheap upgradeability to future generation 5G and beyond. In this context it is hard to imagine IMSI will be there for a long time in a given car, and a more permanent identifier is needed. To Raj - is LTE considering other kinds of identifiers for access control (other than IMSI) for vehicular environments, like V2X? Alex Regards, Behcet Yours, Alex - Jouni & Dapeng 4/1/2015, 8:02 AM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti: Folks, This emails starts a two week call for the I-D draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01 to confirm the aadoption s a DMM WG document. The call ends April 15th EOB PST. Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the IETF92 meeting we got 7 voices for the adoption so at least the same amount supporting emails should be expected. - Jouni & Dapeng ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org
Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01
Le 24/04/2015 21:30, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : [...] When the car arrives home it connects to the WiFi available in home, thus handing over from LTE. This is a sold use-case at e.g. Tesla. The WiFi hotspot can be the one deployed in-house, in-garage, or the WiFi offered by the electrical recharging stations. Even if the is the case then 3GPP developed a lot of things on accessing non-3GPP networks like Wi-Fi. I think line-id is used instead of IMSI? I dont know. Maybe line-id should be suggested as an MN-ID as well. But I can tell that vehicles will not always use the 3GPP-defined means to connect to WiFi. And the WiFi operator is different than the 3GPP operator, and thus a different MN-ID form. The MN-ID that I consider in vehicles is the one used for Mobile IP. 3GPP deployments I confront with dont use Mobile IP. Mobile IP offers a mobility solution completely independent of the access networks. Alex Behcet Other manufacturers propose scenarios in which car's WiFi antenna switches from being an in-car hotspot to being a Client to outside wifi. Some consider 802.11p (wifi for vehicles) to be deployed along highways and cars to perform handovers between these 802.11p access points. Next time on highway scan for WiFi - one is surprised by the number of hotspots driving around, even though often they use portals. There are many commercially considered scenarios involving WiFi handovers for cars. Alex Behcet Newer models will feature IPv6 in addition to IPv4, WiFi handover from LTE to house's hotspot, continuous sessions, and over-the-air software update for cheap upgradeability to future generation 5G and beyond. In this context it is hard to imagine IMSI will be there for a long time in a given car, and a more permanent identifier is needed. To Raj - is LTE considering other kinds of identifiers for access control (other than IMSI) for vehicular environments, like V2X? Alex Regards, Behcet Yours, Alex - Jouni & Dapeng 4/1/2015, 8:02 AM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti: Folks, This emails starts a two week call for the I-D draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01 to confirm the aadoption s a DMM WG document. The call ends April 15th EOB PST. Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the IETF92 meeting we got 7 voices for the adoption so at least the same amount supporting emails should be expected. - Jouni & Dapeng ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Le 23/04/2015 19:11, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : >> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Alexandru Petrescu >> wrote: >>> >>> Le 22/04/2015 18:06, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : Hi Alex, On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > > > Le 16/04/2015 06:58, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : >> >> >> >> Folks, >> >> The adoption call for this I-D has ended. There is a clear concensus >> to >> adopt the I-D as a working group item. > > > > > I support its adoption. > > We have been working with an identifier specific to automobiles to use > to > realize access control. Identifying an entire set of IP nodes deployed > in a > vehicle is different than identifying an end-user like address@realm. > > We looked for such an identifier and believe the VIN (Vehicle > Identification > Number) be a good candidate. > > One would consider using one type, like type 40, to encode the VIN or > parts > of it, into an MN-ID. > > The questions to the group are the following: > - is VIN considered private information? (in deployments it is private > to a certain extent, but publicly avaliable to cameras or in public > databases to another extent). > - is the MN-ID type 40 ok for it. > - is one type sufficient or should there be subtypes. What is your model here in providing Internet access to the car? As you may know, operators in US are deploying systems that connect the car to their LTE network upstream and downstream is the passengers in the car that access over Wi-Fi. With LTE, you get mobility support which is based on fixed anchoring. I cc'ed to Raj who works on these types of technologies. The ID there is the IMSI. I don't think vin is used. >>> >>> >>> >>> The model of Internet access to the cars for cars currently on market in >>> Europe is the same - the LTE technology is used, using the IMSI as an >>> identifier. However, that does not use MN-ID, is only IPv4, is not WiFi >>> and >>> does not resist to cellular generation upgrades to 5G and beyond. >> >> >> I don't understand the handover scenario. I think you are mixing the >> car and the passengers in the car. >> LTE is available on a large geography, why should you handover the >> upstream traffic to Wi-Fi? > > > When the car arrives home it connects to the WiFi available in home, thus > handing over from LTE. This is a sold use-case at e.g. Tesla. The WiFi > hotspot can be the one deployed in-house, in-garage, or the WiFi offered by > the electrical recharging stations. > Even if the is the case then 3GPP developed a lot of things on accessing non-3GPP networks like Wi-Fi. I think line-id is used instead of IMSI? Behcet > Other manufacturers propose scenarios in which car's WiFi antenna switches > from being an in-car hotspot to being a Client to outside wifi. > > Some consider 802.11p (wifi for vehicles) to be deployed along highways and > cars to perform handovers between these 802.11p access points. > > Next time on highway scan for WiFi - one is surprised by the number of > hotspots driving around, even though often they use portals. > > There are many commercially considered scenarios involving WiFi handovers > for cars. > > Alex > > >> >> Behcet >>> >>> >>> Newer models will feature IPv6 in addition to IPv4, WiFi handover from >>> LTE >>> to house's hotspot, continuous sessions, and over-the-air software update >>> for cheap upgradeability to future generation 5G and beyond. >>> >>> In this context it is hard to imagine IMSI will be there for a long time >>> in >>> a given car, and a more permanent identifier is needed. >>> >>> To Raj - is LTE considering other kinds of identifiers for access control >>> (other than IMSI) for vehicular environments, like V2X? >>> >>> Alex >>> >>> >>> Regards, Behcet > > > > Yours, > > Alex > > >> >> - Jouni & Dapeng >> >> 4/1/2015, 8:02 AM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti: >>> >>> >>> >>> Folks, >>> >>> This emails starts a two week call for the I-D >>> draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01 >>> to confirm the aadoption s a DMM WG document. The call ends April >>> 15th >>> EOB PST. >>> >>> Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the >>> IETF92 meeting we got 7 voices for the adoption so at least the same >>> amount supporting emails should be expected. >>> >>> - Jouni & Dapeng >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> dmm mailing list >> dmm@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> >> > > > ___ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > ht
Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01
I am still not convinced. At home I have LTE. LTE can be 3G if it is somewhat degraded and 3G is also available, so no reason for inter technology handoff. I am also concerned on some other MN ids proposed like RFid, what is the assumption there? Is it that the sensor node will have Mobile IP client? To that I say, give me a break. Behcet Behcet On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Le 23/04/2015 19:11, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : >> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Alexandru Petrescu >> wrote: >>> >>> Le 22/04/2015 18:06, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : Hi Alex, On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > > > Le 16/04/2015 06:58, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : >> >> >> >> Folks, >> >> The adoption call for this I-D has ended. There is a clear concensus >> to >> adopt the I-D as a working group item. > > > > > I support its adoption. > > We have been working with an identifier specific to automobiles to use > to > realize access control. Identifying an entire set of IP nodes deployed > in a > vehicle is different than identifying an end-user like address@realm. > > We looked for such an identifier and believe the VIN (Vehicle > Identification > Number) be a good candidate. > > One would consider using one type, like type 40, to encode the VIN or > parts > of it, into an MN-ID. > > The questions to the group are the following: > - is VIN considered private information? (in deployments it is private > to a certain extent, but publicly avaliable to cameras or in public > databases to another extent). > - is the MN-ID type 40 ok for it. > - is one type sufficient or should there be subtypes. What is your model here in providing Internet access to the car? As you may know, operators in US are deploying systems that connect the car to their LTE network upstream and downstream is the passengers in the car that access over Wi-Fi. With LTE, you get mobility support which is based on fixed anchoring. I cc'ed to Raj who works on these types of technologies. The ID there is the IMSI. I don't think vin is used. >>> >>> >>> >>> The model of Internet access to the cars for cars currently on market in >>> Europe is the same - the LTE technology is used, using the IMSI as an >>> identifier. However, that does not use MN-ID, is only IPv4, is not WiFi >>> and >>> does not resist to cellular generation upgrades to 5G and beyond. >> >> >> I don't understand the handover scenario. I think you are mixing the >> car and the passengers in the car. >> LTE is available on a large geography, why should you handover the >> upstream traffic to Wi-Fi? > > > When the car arrives home it connects to the WiFi available in home, thus > handing over from LTE. This is a sold use-case at e.g. Tesla. The WiFi > hotspot can be the one deployed in-house, in-garage, or the WiFi offered by > the electrical recharging stations. > > Other manufacturers propose scenarios in which car's WiFi antenna switches > from being an in-car hotspot to being a Client to outside wifi. > > Some consider 802.11p (wifi for vehicles) to be deployed along highways and > cars to perform handovers between these 802.11p access points. > > Next time on highway scan for WiFi - one is surprised by the number of > hotspots driving around, even though often they use portals. > > There are many commercially considered scenarios involving WiFi handovers > for cars. > > Alex > > >> >> Behcet >>> >>> >>> Newer models will feature IPv6 in addition to IPv4, WiFi handover from >>> LTE >>> to house's hotspot, continuous sessions, and over-the-air software update >>> for cheap upgradeability to future generation 5G and beyond. >>> >>> In this context it is hard to imagine IMSI will be there for a long time >>> in >>> a given car, and a more permanent identifier is needed. >>> >>> To Raj - is LTE considering other kinds of identifiers for access control >>> (other than IMSI) for vehicular environments, like V2X? >>> >>> Alex >>> >>> >>> Regards, Behcet > > > > Yours, > > Alex > > >> >> - Jouni & Dapeng >> >> 4/1/2015, 8:02 AM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti: >>> >>> >>> >>> Folks, >>> >>> This emails starts a two week call for the I-D >>> draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01 >>> to confirm the aadoption s a DMM WG document. The call ends April >>> 15th >>> EOB PST. >>> >>> Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the >>> IETF92 meeting we got 7 voices for the adoption so at least the same >>> amount supporting emails should be expected. >>> >>> - Jouni & Dapeng >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> dmm mailing list >>
Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01
Hi Alex, > -Original Message- > From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 1:27 AM > To: sarik...@ieee.org > Cc: sofiane.imad...@gmail.com; Basavaraj Patil; dmm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01 > > Le 23/04/2015 19:11, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Alexandru Petrescu > > wrote: > >> Le 22/04/2015 18:06, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : > >>> > >>>Hi Alex, > >>> > >>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Alexandru Petrescu > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Le 16/04/2015 06:58, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Folks, > >>>>> > >>>>> The adoption call for this I-D has ended. There is a clear concensus to > >>>>> adopt the I-D as a working group item. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I support its adoption. > >>>> > >>>> We have been working with an identifier specific to automobiles to use to > >>>> realize access control. Identifying an entire set of IP nodes deployed > >>>> in a > >>>> vehicle is different than identifying an end-user like address@realm. > >>>> > >>>> We looked for such an identifier and believe the VIN (Vehicle > >>>> Identification > >>>> Number) be a good candidate. > >>>> > >>>> One would consider using one type, like type 40, to encode the VIN or > >>>> parts > >>>> of it, into an MN-ID. > >>>> > >>>> The questions to the group are the following: > >>>> - is VIN considered private information? (in deployments it is private > >>>> to a certain extent, but publicly avaliable to cameras or in public > >>>> databases to another extent). > >>>> - is the MN-ID type 40 ok for it. > >>>> - is one type sufficient or should there be subtypes. > >>> > >>> > >>> What is your model here in providing Internet access to the car? > >>> As you may know, operators in US are deploying systems that connect > >>> the car to their LTE network upstream and downstream is the passengers > >>> in the car that access over Wi-Fi. > >>> With LTE, you get mobility support which is based on fixed anchoring. > >>> I cc'ed to Raj who works on these types of technologies. > >>> The ID there is the IMSI. I don't think vin is used. > >> > >> > >> The model of Internet access to the cars for cars currently on market in > >> Europe is the same - the LTE technology is used, using the IMSI as an > >> identifier. However, that does not use MN-ID, is only IPv4, is not WiFi > >> and > >> does not resist to cellular generation upgrades to 5G and beyond. > > > > I don't understand the handover scenario. I think you are mixing the > > car and the passengers in the car. > > LTE is available on a large geography, why should you handover the > > upstream traffic to Wi-Fi? > > When the car arrives home it connects to the WiFi available in home, > thus handing over from LTE. This is a sold use-case at e.g. Tesla. The > WiFi hotspot can be the one deployed in-house, in-garage, or the WiFi > offered by the electrical recharging stations. In the aviation domain, the term "gatelink" is often used to describe this kind of WiFi handover. Thanks - Fred fred.l.temp...@boeing.com > Other manufacturers propose scenarios in which car's WiFi antenna > switches from being an in-car hotspot to being a Client to outside wifi. > > Some consider 802.11p (wifi for vehicles) to be deployed along highways > and cars to perform handovers between these 802.11p access points. > > Next time on highway scan for WiFi - one is surprised by the number of > hotspots driving around, even though often they use portals. > > There are many commercially considered scenarios involving WiFi > handovers for cars. > > Alex > > > > > Behcet > >> > >> Newer models will feature IPv6 in addition to IPv4, WiFi handover from LTE > >> to house's hotspot, continuous sessions, and over-the-air software update > >> for cheap upgradeability to future generation 5G and beyond. > >> > >> In this context it is hard to imagine
Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01
Le 23/04/2015 19:11, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Le 22/04/2015 18:06, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : Hi Alex, On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Le 16/04/2015 06:58, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : Folks, The adoption call for this I-D has ended. There is a clear concensus to adopt the I-D as a working group item. I support its adoption. We have been working with an identifier specific to automobiles to use to realize access control. Identifying an entire set of IP nodes deployed in a vehicle is different than identifying an end-user like address@realm. We looked for such an identifier and believe the VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) be a good candidate. One would consider using one type, like type 40, to encode the VIN or parts of it, into an MN-ID. The questions to the group are the following: - is VIN considered private information? (in deployments it is private to a certain extent, but publicly avaliable to cameras or in public databases to another extent). - is the MN-ID type 40 ok for it. - is one type sufficient or should there be subtypes. What is your model here in providing Internet access to the car? As you may know, operators in US are deploying systems that connect the car to their LTE network upstream and downstream is the passengers in the car that access over Wi-Fi. With LTE, you get mobility support which is based on fixed anchoring. I cc'ed to Raj who works on these types of technologies. The ID there is the IMSI. I don't think vin is used. The model of Internet access to the cars for cars currently on market in Europe is the same - the LTE technology is used, using the IMSI as an identifier. However, that does not use MN-ID, is only IPv4, is not WiFi and does not resist to cellular generation upgrades to 5G and beyond. I don't understand the handover scenario. I think you are mixing the car and the passengers in the car. LTE is available on a large geography, why should you handover the upstream traffic to Wi-Fi? When the car arrives home it connects to the WiFi available in home, thus handing over from LTE. This is a sold use-case at e.g. Tesla. The WiFi hotspot can be the one deployed in-house, in-garage, or the WiFi offered by the electrical recharging stations. Other manufacturers propose scenarios in which car's WiFi antenna switches from being an in-car hotspot to being a Client to outside wifi. Some consider 802.11p (wifi for vehicles) to be deployed along highways and cars to perform handovers between these 802.11p access points. Next time on highway scan for WiFi - one is surprised by the number of hotspots driving around, even though often they use portals. There are many commercially considered scenarios involving WiFi handovers for cars. Alex Behcet Newer models will feature IPv6 in addition to IPv4, WiFi handover from LTE to house's hotspot, continuous sessions, and over-the-air software update for cheap upgradeability to future generation 5G and beyond. In this context it is hard to imagine IMSI will be there for a long time in a given car, and a more permanent identifier is needed. To Raj - is LTE considering other kinds of identifiers for access control (other than IMSI) for vehicular environments, like V2X? Alex Regards, Behcet Yours, Alex - Jouni & Dapeng 4/1/2015, 8:02 AM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti: Folks, This emails starts a two week call for the I-D draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01 to confirm the aadoption s a DMM WG document. The call ends April 15th EOB PST. Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the IETF92 meeting we got 7 voices for the adoption so at least the same amount supporting emails should be expected. - Jouni & Dapeng ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01
Hello Behcet, On 4/23/2015 10:11 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: The model of Internet access to the cars for cars currently on market in Europe is the same - the LTE technology is used, using the IMSI as an identifier. However, that does not use MN-ID, is only IPv4, is not WiFi and does not resist to cellular generation upgrades to 5G and beyond. I don't understand the handover scenario. I think you are mixing the car and the passengers in the car. LTE is available on a large geography, why should you handover the upstream traffic to Wi-Fi? I think the IETF should be enabling solutions that do not presume the availability of LTE. There are likely to be applications for which reduced (or zero) cost is important. Regards, Charlie P. ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Le 22/04/2015 18:06, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : >> >> Hi Alex, >> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Alexandru Petrescu >> wrote: >>> >>> Le 16/04/2015 06:58, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : Folks, The adoption call for this I-D has ended. There is a clear concensus to adopt the I-D as a working group item. >>> >>> >>> >>> I support its adoption. >>> >>> We have been working with an identifier specific to automobiles to use to >>> realize access control. Identifying an entire set of IP nodes deployed >>> in a >>> vehicle is different than identifying an end-user like address@realm. >>> >>> We looked for such an identifier and believe the VIN (Vehicle >>> Identification >>> Number) be a good candidate. >>> >>> One would consider using one type, like type 40, to encode the VIN or >>> parts >>> of it, into an MN-ID. >>> >>> The questions to the group are the following: >>> - is VIN considered private information? (in deployments it is private >>>to a certain extent, but publicly avaliable to cameras or in public >>>databases to another extent). >>> - is the MN-ID type 40 ok for it. >>> - is one type sufficient or should there be subtypes. >> >> >> What is your model here in providing Internet access to the car? >> As you may know, operators in US are deploying systems that connect >> the car to their LTE network upstream and downstream is the passengers >> in the car that access over Wi-Fi. >> With LTE, you get mobility support which is based on fixed anchoring. >> I cc'ed to Raj who works on these types of technologies. >> The ID there is the IMSI. I don't think vin is used. > > > The model of Internet access to the cars for cars currently on market in > Europe is the same - the LTE technology is used, using the IMSI as an > identifier. However, that does not use MN-ID, is only IPv4, is not WiFi and > does not resist to cellular generation upgrades to 5G and beyond. I don't understand the handover scenario. I think you are mixing the car and the passengers in the car. LTE is available on a large geography, why should you handover the upstream traffic to Wi-Fi? Behcet > > Newer models will feature IPv6 in addition to IPv4, WiFi handover from LTE > to house's hotspot, continuous sessions, and over-the-air software update > for cheap upgradeability to future generation 5G and beyond. > > In this context it is hard to imagine IMSI will be there for a long time in > a given car, and a more permanent identifier is needed. > > To Raj - is LTE considering other kinds of identifiers for access control > (other than IMSI) for vehicular environments, like V2X? > > Alex > > > >> >> Regards, >> >> Behcet >>> >>> >>> Yours, >>> >>> Alex >>> >>> - Jouni & Dapeng 4/1/2015, 8:02 AM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti: > > > Folks, > > This emails starts a two week call for the I-D > draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01 > to confirm the aadoption s a DMM WG document. The call ends April 15th > EOB PST. > > Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the > IETF92 meeting we got 7 voices for the adoption so at least the same > amount supporting emails should be expected. > > - Jouni & Dapeng ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> dmm mailing list >>> dmm@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> >> >> > > ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01
Le 22/04/2015 18:06, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : Hi Alex, On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Le 16/04/2015 06:58, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : Folks, The adoption call for this I-D has ended. There is a clear concensus to adopt the I-D as a working group item. I support its adoption. We have been working with an identifier specific to automobiles to use to realize access control. Identifying an entire set of IP nodes deployed in a vehicle is different than identifying an end-user like address@realm. We looked for such an identifier and believe the VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) be a good candidate. One would consider using one type, like type 40, to encode the VIN or parts of it, into an MN-ID. The questions to the group are the following: - is VIN considered private information? (in deployments it is private to a certain extent, but publicly avaliable to cameras or in public databases to another extent). - is the MN-ID type 40 ok for it. - is one type sufficient or should there be subtypes. What is your model here in providing Internet access to the car? As you may know, operators in US are deploying systems that connect the car to their LTE network upstream and downstream is the passengers in the car that access over Wi-Fi. With LTE, you get mobility support which is based on fixed anchoring. I cc'ed to Raj who works on these types of technologies. The ID there is the IMSI. I don't think vin is used. The model of Internet access to the cars for cars currently on market in Europe is the same - the LTE technology is used, using the IMSI as an identifier. However, that does not use MN-ID, is only IPv4, is not WiFi and does not resist to cellular generation upgrades to 5G and beyond. Newer models will feature IPv6 in addition to IPv4, WiFi handover from LTE to house's hotspot, continuous sessions, and over-the-air software update for cheap upgradeability to future generation 5G and beyond. In this context it is hard to imagine IMSI will be there for a long time in a given car, and a more permanent identifier is needed. To Raj - is LTE considering other kinds of identifiers for access control (other than IMSI) for vehicular environments, like V2X? Alex Regards, Behcet Yours, Alex - Jouni & Dapeng 4/1/2015, 8:02 AM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti: Folks, This emails starts a two week call for the I-D draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01 to confirm the aadoption s a DMM WG document. The call ends April 15th EOB PST. Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the IETF92 meeting we got 7 voices for the adoption so at least the same amount supporting emails should be expected. - Jouni & Dapeng ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01
Hi Alex, On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Le 16/04/2015 06:58, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : >> >> Folks, >> >> The adoption call for this I-D has ended. There is a clear concensus to >> adopt the I-D as a working group item. > > > I support its adoption. > > We have been working with an identifier specific to automobiles to use to > realize access control. Identifying an entire set of IP nodes deployed in a > vehicle is different than identifying an end-user like address@realm. > > We looked for such an identifier and believe the VIN (Vehicle Identification > Number) be a good candidate. > > One would consider using one type, like type 40, to encode the VIN or parts > of it, into an MN-ID. > > The questions to the group are the following: > - is VIN considered private information? (in deployments it is private > to a certain extent, but publicly avaliable to cameras or in public > databases to another extent). > - is the MN-ID type 40 ok for it. > - is one type sufficient or should there be subtypes. What is your model here in providing Internet access to the car? As you may know, operators in US are deploying systems that connect the car to their LTE network upstream and downstream is the passengers in the car that access over Wi-Fi. With LTE, you get mobility support which is based on fixed anchoring. I cc'ed to Raj who works on these types of technologies. The ID there is the IMSI. I don't think vin is used. Regards, Behcet > > Yours, > > Alex > > >> >> - Jouni & Dapeng >> >> 4/1/2015, 8:02 AM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti: >>> >>> Folks, >>> >>> This emails starts a two week call for the I-D >>>draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01 >>> to confirm the aadoption s a DMM WG document. The call ends April 15th >>> EOB PST. >>> >>> Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the >>> IETF92 meeting we got 7 voices for the adoption so at least the same >>> amount supporting emails should be expected. >>> >>> - Jouni & Dapeng >> >> >> ___ >> dmm mailing list >> dmm@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> >> > > > ___ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01
Hello folks, The ...-00 document draft-dmm-4283mnids-00.txt has been submitted. I'll make a new draft with VIN as a type of MNID as soon as Alex's questions have proposed answers. Regards, Charlie P. On 4/21/2015 12:55 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Le 16/04/2015 06:58, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : Folks, The adoption call for this I-D has ended. There is a clear concensus to adopt the I-D as a working group item. I support its adoption. We have been working with an identifier specific to automobiles to use to realize access control. Identifying an entire set of IP nodes deployed in a vehicle is different than identifying an end-user like address@realm. We looked for such an identifier and believe the VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) be a good candidate. One would consider using one type, like type 40, to encode the VIN or parts of it, into an MN-ID. The questions to the group are the following: - is VIN considered private information? (in deployments it is private to a certain extent, but publicly avaliable to cameras or in public databases to another extent). - is the MN-ID type 40 ok for it. - is one type sufficient or should there be subtypes. Yours, Alex - Jouni & Dapeng 4/1/2015, 8:02 AM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti: Folks, This emails starts a two week call for the I-D draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01 to confirm the aadoption s a DMM WG document. The call ends April 15th EOB PST. Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the IETF92 meeting we got 7 voices for the adoption so at least the same amount supporting emails should be expected. - Jouni & Dapeng ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01
Le 16/04/2015 06:58, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : Folks, The adoption call for this I-D has ended. There is a clear concensus to adopt the I-D as a working group item. I support its adoption. We have been working with an identifier specific to automobiles to use to realize access control. Identifying an entire set of IP nodes deployed in a vehicle is different than identifying an end-user like address@realm. We looked for such an identifier and believe the VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) be a good candidate. One would consider using one type, like type 40, to encode the VIN or parts of it, into an MN-ID. The questions to the group are the following: - is VIN considered private information? (in deployments it is private to a certain extent, but publicly avaliable to cameras or in public databases to another extent). - is the MN-ID type 40 ok for it. - is one type sufficient or should there be subtypes. Yours, Alex - Jouni & Dapeng 4/1/2015, 8:02 AM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti: Folks, This emails starts a two week call for the I-D draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01 to confirm the aadoption s a DMM WG document. The call ends April 15th EOB PST. Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the IETF92 meeting we got 7 voices for the adoption so at least the same amount supporting emails should be expected. - Jouni & Dapeng ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01
Folks, The adoption call for this I-D has ended. There is a clear concensus to adopt the I-D as a working group item. - Jouni & Dapeng 4/1/2015, 8:02 AM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti: Folks, This emails starts a two week call for the I-D draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01 to confirm the aadoption s a DMM WG document. The call ends April 15th EOB PST. Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the IETF92 meeting we got 7 voices for the adoption so at least the same amount supporting emails should be expected. - Jouni & Dapeng ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01
I support the adoption of this Internet draft as DMM WG document. marco >-Original Message- >From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jouni Korhonen >Sent: Mittwoch, 1. April 2015 17:02 >To: dmm@ietf.org; Jouni; Dapeng Liu; draft-perkins-dmm- >4283mn...@tools.ietf.org >Subject: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01 > >Folks, > >This emails starts a two week call for the I-D > draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01 >to confirm the aadoption s a DMM WG document. The call ends April 15th EOB >PST. > >Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the >IETF92 meeting we got 7 voices for the adoption so at least the same amount >supporting emails should be expected. > >- Jouni & Dapeng > >___ >dmm mailing list >dmm@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01
I support the adoption of this draft. -- Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random Protocol Engineering Lab., Sangmyung University #email: jonghy...@gmail.com #webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon > On Apr 4, 2015, at 5:38 AM, pierrick.se...@orange.com wrote: > > > I support adoption of this I-D > > 4/1/2015, 8:02 AM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti: >> Folks, >> >> This emails starts a two week call for the I-D >> draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01 >> to confirm the aadoption s a DMM WG document. The call ends April 15th >> EOB PST. >> >> Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the >> IETF92 meeting we got 7 voices for the adoption so at least the same >> amount supporting emails should be expected. >> >> - Jouni & Dapeng > > ___ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > > _ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > ___ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01
I support adoption of this I-D 4/1/2015, 8:02 AM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti: > Folks, > > This emails starts a two week call for the I-D >draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01 > to confirm the aadoption s a DMM WG document. The call ends April 15th > EOB PST. > > Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the > IETF92 meeting we got 7 voices for the adoption so at least the same > amount supporting emails should be expected. > > - Jouni & Dapeng ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01
[as an individual contributor] I support the adoption of this document. - Jouni 4/1/2015, 8:02 AM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti: Folks, This emails starts a two week call for the I-D draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01 to confirm the aadoption s a DMM WG document. The call ends April 15th EOB PST. Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the IETF92 meeting we got 7 voices for the adoption so at least the same amount supporting emails should be expected. - Jouni & Dapeng ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01
I support the adoption of this draft as a WG document; I only have an editorial comment - Section 2 makes reference to an EPC and a few other acronyms. Expanding a few of these out may help some readers. On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: > Folks, > > This emails starts a two week call for the I-D > draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01 > to confirm the aadoption s a DMM WG document. The call ends April 15th EOB > PST. > > Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the IETF92 > meeting we got 7 voices for the adoption so at least the same amount > supporting emails should be expected. > > - Jouni & Dapeng > > ___ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01
I support the adoption of this draft as a WG document; There was good amount of discussion on supporting RFID related identifiers. We need to make sure all of those comments will be addressed in the subsequent revisions. Sri On 4/1/15, 8:02 AM, "Jouni Korhonen" wrote: >Folks, > >This emails starts a two week call for the I-D > draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01 >to confirm the aadoption s a DMM WG document. The call ends April 15th >EOB PST. > >Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the >IETF92 meeting we got 7 voices for the adoption so at least the same >amount supporting emails should be expected. > >- Jouni & Dapeng > >___ >dmm mailing list >dmm@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
