draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-21.txt | draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-22.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
IPWAVE Working Group J. Jeong, Ed. | IPWAVE Working Group J. Jeong, Ed. | |||
Internet-Draft Sungkyunkwan University | Internet-Draft Sungkyunkwan University | |||
Intended status: Informational 30 August 2021 | Intended status: Informational 2 September 2021 | |||
Expires: 3 March 2022 | Expires: 6 March 2022 | |||
IPv6 Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE): Problem | IPv6 Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE): Problem | |||
Statement and Use Cases | Statement and Use Cases | |||
draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-21 | draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-22 | |||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
This document discusses the problem statement and use cases of | This document discusses the problem statement and use cases of | |||
IPv6-based vehicular networking for Intelligent Transportation | IPv6-based vehicular networking for Intelligent Transportation | |||
Systems (ITS). The main scenarios of vehicular communications are | Systems (ITS). The main scenarios of vehicular communications are | |||
vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and | vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and | |||
vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications. First, this document | vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications. First, this document | |||
explains use cases using V2V, V2I, and V2X networking. Next, for | explains use cases using V2V, V2I, and V2X networking. Next, for | |||
IPv6-based vehicular networks, it makes a gap analysis of current | IPv6-based vehicular networks, it makes a gap analysis of current | |||
skipping to change at page 1, line 41 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 41 ¶ | |||
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
This Internet-Draft will expire on 3 March 2022. | This Internet-Draft will expire on 6 March 2022. | |||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ | |||
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. | license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. | |||
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights | Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights | |||
skipping to change at page 2, line 33 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 33 ¶ | |||
4.1. Vehicular Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 4.1. Vehicular Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
4.2. V2I-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 4.2. V2I-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
4.3. V2V-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | 4.3. V2V-based Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | |||
5. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | 5. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | |||
5.1. Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | 5.1. Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | |||
5.1.1. Link Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | 5.1.1. Link Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | |||
5.1.2. MAC Address Pseudonym . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 5.1.2. MAC Address Pseudonym . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
5.1.3. Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 5.1.3. Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
5.2. Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | 5.2. Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |||
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | |||
6.1. Security Threats in Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . 31 | 6.1. Security Threats in Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . 32 | |||
6.2. Security Threats in Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . 33 | 6.2. Security Threats in Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . 33 | |||
6.3. Other Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | 6.3. Other Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | |||
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | |||
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | |||
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 | |||
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 | 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 | |||
Appendix A. Support of Multiple Radio Technologies for V2V . . . 44 | Appendix A. Support of Multiple Radio Technologies for V2V . . . 44 | |||
Appendix B. Support of Multihop V2X Networking . . . . . . . . . 45 | Appendix B. Support of Multihop V2X Networking . . . . . . . . . 45 | |||
Appendix C. Support of Mobility Management for V2I . . . . . . . 45 | Appendix C. Support of Mobility Management for V2I . . . . . . . 46 | |||
Appendix D. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 | Appendix D. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 | |||
Appendix E. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 | Appendix E. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 | |||
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 | Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 | |||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
Vehicular networking studies have mainly focused on improving safety | Vehicular networking studies have mainly focused on improving safety | |||
and efficiency, and also enabling entertainment in vehicular | and efficiency, and also enabling entertainment in vehicular | |||
networks. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US | networks. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US | |||
allocated wireless channels for Dedicated Short-Range Communications | allocated wireless channels for Dedicated Short-Range Communications | |||
(DSRC) [DSRC] in the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) with | (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- | 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), | based wireless communications can support vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), | |||
skipping to change at page 4, line 51 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 51 ¶ | |||
* Edge Network (EN): It is an access network that has an IP-RSU for | * Edge Network (EN): It is an access network that has an IP-RSU for | |||
wireless communication with other vehicles having an IP-OBU and | wireless communication with other vehicles having an IP-OBU and | |||
wired communication with other network devices (e.g., routers, IP- | wired communication with other network devices (e.g., routers, IP- | |||
RSUs, ECDs, servers, and MA). It may have a Global Positioning | RSUs, ECDs, servers, and MA). It may have a Global Positioning | |||
System (GPS) radio receiver for its position recognition and the | System (GPS) radio receiver for its position recognition and the | |||
localization service for the sake of vehicles. | localization service for the sake of vehicles. | |||
* IP-OBU: "Internet Protocol On-Board Unit": An IP-OBU denotes a | * IP-OBU: "Internet Protocol On-Board Unit": An IP-OBU denotes a | |||
computer situated in a vehicle (e.g., car, bicycle, autobike, | computer situated in a vehicle (e.g., car, bicycle, autobike, | |||
motor cycle, and a similar one) and a device (e.g., smartphone and | motor cycle, and a similar one) and a device (e.g., smartphone and | |||
IoT device). It has at least one IP interface that runs in IEEE | Internet-of-Things (IoT) device). It has at least one IP | |||
802.11-OCB and has an "OBU" transceiver. Also, it may have an IP | interface that runs in IEEE 802.11-OCB and has an "OBU" | |||
interface that runs in Cellular V2X (C-V2X) [TS-23.285-3GPP] | transceiver. Also, it may have an IP interface that runs in | |||
Cellular V2X (C-V2X) [TS-23.285-3GPP] | ||||
[TR-22.886-3GPP][TS-23.287-3GPP]. It can play a role of a router | [TR-22.886-3GPP][TS-23.287-3GPP]. It can play a role of a router | |||
connecting multiple computers (or in-vehicle devices) inside a | connecting multiple computers (or in-vehicle devices) inside a | |||
vehicle. See the definition of the term "OBU" in [RFC8691]. | vehicle. See the definition of the term "OBU" in [RFC8691]. | |||
* IP-RSU: "IP Roadside Unit": An IP-RSU is situated along the road. | * IP-RSU: "IP Roadside Unit": An IP-RSU is situated along the road. | |||
It has at least two distinct IP-enabled interfaces. The wireless | It has at least two distinct IP-enabled interfaces. The wireless | |||
PHY/MAC layer of at least one of its IP-enabled interfaces is | PHY/MAC layer of at least one of its IP-enabled interfaces is | |||
configured to operate in 802.11-OCB mode. An IP-RSU communicates | configured to operate in 802.11-OCB mode. An IP-RSU communicates | |||
with the IP-OBU over an 802.11 wireless link operating in OCB | with the IP-OBU over an 802.11 wireless link operating in OCB | |||
mode. Also, it may have an IP interface that runs in C-V2X along | mode. Also, it may have an IP interface that runs in C-V2X along | |||
skipping to change at page 28, line 8 ¶ | skipping to change at page 27, line 52 ¶ | |||
A routing protocol for a VANET may cause redundant wireless frames in | A routing protocol for a VANET may cause redundant wireless frames in | |||
the air to check the neighborhood of each vehicle and compute the | the air to check the neighborhood of each vehicle and compute the | |||
routing information in a VANET with a dynamic network topology | routing information in a VANET with a dynamic network topology | |||
because the IPv6 ND is used to check the neighborhood of each | because the IPv6 ND is used to check the neighborhood of each | |||
vehicle. Thus, the vehicular routing needs to take advantage of the | vehicle. Thus, the vehicular routing needs to take advantage of the | |||
IPv6 ND to minimize its control overhead. | IPv6 ND to minimize its control overhead. | |||
RPL [RFC6550] defines a routing protocol for low-power and lossy | RPL [RFC6550] defines a routing protocol for low-power and lossy | |||
networks, which constructs and maintains DODAGs optimized by an | networks, which constructs and maintains DODAGs optimized by an | |||
Objective Function (OF). A defined OF provides route selection and | Objective Function (OF). A defined OF provides route selection and | |||
optimization within a RPL topology. A node in a DODAG uses DODAG | optimization within an RPL topology. A node in a DODAG uses DODAG | |||
Information Objects (DIOs) messages to discover and maintain the | Information Objects (DIOs) messages to discover and maintain the | |||
upward routes toward the root node. | upward routes toward the root node. Refer to Appendix B for the | |||
detailed description of RPL for multihop V2X networking. | ||||
An address registration extension for 6LoWPAN (IPv6 over Low-Power | An address registration extension for 6LoWPAN (IPv6 over Low-Power | |||
Wireless Personal Area Network) in [RFC8505] can support light-weight | Wireless Personal Area Network) in [RFC8505] can support light-weight | |||
mobility for nodes moving through different parents. Mainly it | mobility for nodes moving through different parents. Mainly it | |||
updates the Address Registration Option (ARO) of ND defined in | updates the Address Registration Option (ARO) of ND defined in | |||
[RFC6775] to include a status field that can indicate the movement of | [RFC6775] to include a status field that can indicate the movement of | |||
a node and optionally a Transaction ID (TID) field, i.e., a sequence | a node and optionally a Transaction ID (TID) field, i.e., a sequence | |||
number that can be used to determine the most recent location of a | number that can be used to determine the most recent location of a | |||
node. | node. | |||
RPL can use the information provided by the extended ARO defined in | RPL can use the information provided by the extended ARO defined in | |||
[RFC8505] to deal with a certain level of node mobility. When a leaf | [RFC8505] to deal with a certain level of node mobility. When a leaf | |||
node moves to the coverage of another parent node, it should de- | node moves to the coverage of another parent node, it should de- | |||
register its addresses to the previous parent node and register | register its addresses to the previous parent node and register | |||
itself with a new parent node along with an incremented TID. | itself with a new parent node along with an incremented TID. | |||
Although RPL can be used in IPv6-based vehicular networks, it is | RPL can be used in IPv6-based vehicular networks, but it is primarily | |||
primarily designed for lossy networks, which puts energy efficiency | designed for lossy networks, which puts energy efficiency first. For | |||
first. In addition, the topology it considers may not quickly scale | using it in IPv6-based vehicular networks, there have not been actual | |||
up and down for IPv6-based vehicular networks, since the mobility of | experiences and practical implementations for vehicular networks, | |||
vehicles is much more diverse with a high speed, so it can frequently | though it was tested in IoT low-power and lossy networks (LLN) | |||
alter a tree-like topology formed by RPL, which may cause network | scenarios. | |||
fragmentation and merging with more control traffic. | ||||
Moreover, due to bandwidth and energy constraints, RPL does not | Moreover, due to bandwidth and energy constraints, RPL does not | |||
suggest to use a proactive mechanism (e.g., keepalive) to maintain | suggest to use a proactive mechanism (e.g., keepalive) to maintain | |||
accurate routing adjacencies such as Bidirectional Forwarding | accurate routing adjacencies such as Bidirectional Forwarding | |||
Detection [RFC5881] and MANET Neighborhood Discovery Protocol | Detection [RFC5881] and MANET Neighborhood Discovery Protocol | |||
[RFC6130]. As a result, due to the mobility of vehicles, the network | [RFC6130]. As a result, due to the mobility of vehicles, network | |||
fragmentation is not detected quickly and the routing of packets | fragmentation may not be detected quickly and the routing of packets | |||
between vehicles or between a vehicle and an infrastructure node may | between vehicles or between a vehicle and an infrastructure node may | |||
fail. | fail. | |||
5.2. Mobility Management | 5.2. Mobility Management | |||
The seamless connectivity and timely data exchange between two end | The seamless connectivity and timely data exchange between two end | |||
points requires efficient mobility management including location | points requires efficient mobility management including location | |||
management and handover. Most vehicles are equipped with a GPS | management and handover. Most vehicles are equipped with a GPS | |||
receiver as part of a dedicated navigation system or a corresponding | receiver as part of a dedicated navigation system or a corresponding | |||
smartphone App. Note that the GPS receiver may not provide vehicles | smartphone App. Note that the GPS receiver may not provide vehicles | |||
skipping to change at page 45, line 15 ¶ | skipping to change at page 45, line 15 ¶ | |||
Appendix B. Support of Multihop V2X Networking | Appendix B. Support of Multihop V2X Networking | |||
The multihop V2X networking can be supported by RPL (IPv6 Routing | The multihop V2X networking can be supported by RPL (IPv6 Routing | |||
Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) [RFC6550] and Overlay | Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) [RFC6550] and Overlay | |||
Multilink Network Interface (OMNI) [OMNI]. | Multilink Network Interface (OMNI) [OMNI]. | |||
RPL defines an IPv6 routing protocol for low-power and lossy networks | RPL defines an IPv6 routing protocol for low-power and lossy networks | |||
(LLN), mostly designed for home automation routing, building | (LLN), mostly designed for home automation routing, building | |||
automation routing, industrial routing, and urban LLN routing. It | automation routing, industrial routing, and urban LLN routing. It | |||
uses a destination oriented directed acyclic graph (DODAG) to | uses a destination oriented directed acyclic graph (DODAG) to | |||
construct routing paths for hosts in a network. The DODAG uses an | construct routing paths for hosts (e.g., IoT devices) in a network. | |||
objective function (OF) for route selection and optimization within | The DODAG uses an objective function (OF) for route selection and | |||
the network. A user can use different routing metrics to define an | optimization within the network. A user can use different routing | |||
OF for a specific scenario. RPL supports multipoint-to-point, point- | metrics to define an OF for a specific scenario. RPL supports | |||
to-multipoint, and point-to-point traffic, and the major traffic flow | multipoint-to-point, point-to-multipoint, and point-to-point traffic, | |||
is the multipoint-to-point traffic. For example, in a highway | and the major traffic flow is the multipoint-to-point traffic. For | |||
scenario, a vehicle may not access an RSU directly because of the | example, in a highway scenario, a vehicle may not access an RSU | |||
distance of the DSRC coverage (up to 1 km). In this case, the RPL | directly because of the distance of the DSRC coverage (up to 1 km). | |||
can be extended to support a multihop V2I since a vehicle can take | In this case, the RPL can be extended to support a multihop V2I since | |||
advantage of other vehicles as relay nodes to reach the RSU. Also, | a vehicle can take advantage of other vehicles as relay nodes to | |||
RPL can be extended to support both multihop V2V and V2X in the | reach the RSU. Also, RPL can be extended to support both multihop | |||
similar way. | V2V and V2X in the similar way. | |||
RPL is primarily designed to minimize the control plane activity, | ||||
which is the relative amount of routing protocol exchanges versus | ||||
data traffic; this approach is beneficial for situations where the | ||||
power and bandwidth are scarce (e.g., an IoT LLN where RPL is | ||||
typically used today), but also in situations of high relative | ||||
mobility between the nodes in the network (also known as swarming, | ||||
e.g., within a variable set of vehicles with a similar global motion, | ||||
or a variable set of drones flying toward the same direction). | ||||
To reduce the routing exchanges, RPL leverages a Distance Vector | ||||
approach, which does not need a global knowledge of the topology, and | ||||
only optimizes the routes to and from the root, allowing Peer-to-Peer | ||||
(P2P) paths to be stretched. Although RPL installs its routes | ||||
proactively, it only maintains them lazily, that is, in reaction to | ||||
actual traffic, or as a slow background activity. Additionally, RPL | ||||
leverages the concept of an objective function (called OF), which | ||||
allows to adapt the activity of the routing protocol to use cases, | ||||
e.g., type, speed, and quality of the radios. RPL does not need | ||||
converge, and provides connectivity to most nodes most of the time. | ||||
The default route toward the root is maintained aggressively and may | ||||
change while a packet progresses without causing loops, so the packet | ||||
will still reach the root. There are two modes for routing in RPL | ||||
such as non-storing mode and storing mode. In non-storing mode, a | ||||
node inside the mesh/swarm that changes its point(s) of attachment to | ||||
the graph informs the root with a single unicast packet flowing along | ||||
the default route, and the connectivity is restored immediately; this | ||||
mode is preferable for use cases where Internet connectivity is | ||||
dominant. On the other hand, in storing mode, the routing stretch is | ||||
reduced, for a better P2P connectivity, while the Internet | ||||
connectivity is restored more slowly, during the time for the DV | ||||
operation to operate hop-by-hop. While an RPL topology can quickly | ||||
scale up and down and fits the needs of mobility of vehicles, the | ||||
total performance of the system will also depend on how quickly a | ||||
node can form an address, join the mesh (including Authentication, | ||||
Authorization, and Accounting (AAA)), and manage its global mobility | ||||
to become reachable from another node outside the mesh. | ||||
OMNI defines a protocol for the transmission of IPv6 packets over | OMNI defines a protocol for the transmission of IPv6 packets over | |||
Overlay Multilink Network Interfaces that are virtual interfaces | Overlay Multilink Network Interfaces that are virtual interfaces | |||
governing multiple physical network interfaces. OMNI supports | governing multiple physical network interfaces. OMNI supports | |||
multihop V2V communication between vehicles in multiple forwarding | multihop V2V communication between vehicles in multiple forwarding | |||
hops via intermediate vehicles with OMNI links. It also supports | hops via intermediate vehicles with OMNI links. It also supports | |||
multihop V2I communication between a vehicle and an infrastructure | multihop V2I communication between a vehicle and an infrastructure | |||
access point by multihop V2V communication. The OMNI interface | access point by multihop V2V communication. The OMNI interface | |||
supports an NBMA link model where multihop V2V and V2I communications | supports an NBMA link model where multihop V2V and V2I communications | |||
use each mobile node's ULAs without need for any DAD or MLD | use each mobile node's ULAs without need for any DAD or MLD | |||
skipping to change at page 47, line 35 ¶ | skipping to change at page 48, line 23 ¶ | |||
Telekom), Pascal Thubert (Cisco), Carlos Bernardos (UC3M), Russ | Telekom), Pascal Thubert (Cisco), Carlos Bernardos (UC3M), Russ | |||
Housley (Vigil Security), Suresh Krishnan (Kaloom), Nancy Cam-Winget | Housley (Vigil Security), Suresh Krishnan (Kaloom), Nancy Cam-Winget | |||
(Cisco), Fred L. Templin (The Boeing Company), Jung-Soo Park (ETRI), | (Cisco), Fred L. Templin (The Boeing Company), Jung-Soo Park (ETRI), | |||
Zeungil (Ben) Kim (Hyundai Motors), Kyoungjae Sun (Soongsil | Zeungil (Ben) Kim (Hyundai Motors), Kyoungjae Sun (Soongsil | |||
University), Zhiwei Yan (CNNIC), YongJoon Joe (LSware), Peter E. Yee | University), Zhiwei Yan (CNNIC), YongJoon Joe (LSware), Peter E. Yee | |||
(Akayla), and Erik Kline. The authors sincerely appreciate their | (Akayla), and Erik Kline. The authors sincerely appreciate their | |||
contributions. | contributions. | |||
The following are co-authors of this document: | The following are co-authors of this document: | |||
Nabil Benamar Department of Computer Sciences High School of | Nabil Benamar | |||
Technology of Meknes Moulay Ismail University Morocco Phone: +212 6 | ||||
70 83 22 36 EMail: benamar73@gmail.com | ||||
Sandra Cespedes NIC Chile Research Labs Universidad de Chile Av. | Department of Computer Sciences, High School of Technology of Meknes, | |||
Blanco Encalada 1975 Santiago Chile Phone: +56 2 29784093 EMail: | Moulay Ismail University, Morocco, Phone: +212 6 70 83 22 36, EMail: | |||
benamar73@gmail.com | ||||
Sandra Cespedes | ||||
NIC Chile Research Labs, Universidad de Chile, Av. Blanco Encalada | ||||
1975, Santiago, Chile, Phone: +56 2 29784093, EMail: | ||||
scespede@niclabs.cl | scespede@niclabs.cl | |||
Jerome Haerri Communication Systems Department EURECOM Sophia- | Jerome Haerri | |||
Antipolis France Phone: +33 4 93 00 81 34 EMail: | ||||
jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr | ||||
Dapeng Liu Alibaba Beijing, Beijing 100022 China Phone: +86 | Communication Systems Department, EURECOM, Sophia-Antipolis, France, | |||
13911788933 EMail: max.ldp@alibaba-inc.com | Phone: +33 4 93 00 81 34, EMail: jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr | |||
Tae (Tom) Oh Department of Information Sciences and Technologies | Dapeng Liu | |||
Rochester Institute of Technology One Lomb Memorial Drive Rochester, | ||||
NY 14623-5603 USA Phone: +1 585 475 7642 EMail: Tom.Oh@rit.edu | ||||
Charles E. Perkins Futurewei Inc. 2330 Central Expressway Santa | ||||
Clara, CA 95050 USA Phone: +1 408 330 4586 EMail: | ||||
charliep@computer.org | ||||
Alexandre Petrescu CEA, LIST CEA Saclay Gif-sur-Yvette, Ile-de-France | Alibaba, Beijing, Beijing 100022, China, Phone: +86 13911788933, | |||
91190 France Phone: +33169089223 EMail: Alexandre.Petrescu@cea.fr | EMail: max.ldp@alibaba-inc.com | |||
Yiwen Chris Shen Department of Computer Science & Engineering | Tae (Tom) Oh | |||
Sungkyunkwan University 2066 Seobu-Ro, Jangan-Gu Suwon, Gyeonggi-Do | ||||
16419 Republic of Korea Phone: +82 31 299 4106 Fax: +82 31 290 7996 | ||||
EMail: chrisshen@skku.edu URI: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-chris- | ||||
shen.php | ||||
Michelle Wetterwald FBConsulting 21, Route de Luxembourg | Department of Information Sciences and Technologies, Rochester | |||
Wasserbillig, Luxembourg L-6633 Luxembourg EMail: | Institute of Technology, One Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester, NY | |||
Michelle.Wetterwald@gmail.com | 14623-5603, USA, Phone: +1 585 475 7642, EMail: Tom.Oh@rit.edu | |||
Charles E. Perkins | ||||
Futurewei Inc., 2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050, USA, | ||||
Phone: +1 408 330 4586, EMail: charliep@computer.org | ||||
Alexandre Petrescu | ||||
CEA, LIST, CEA Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, Ile-de-France 91190, France, | ||||
Phone: +33169089223, EMail: Alexandre.Petrescu@cea.fr | ||||
Yiwen Chris Shen | ||||
Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Sungkyunkwan | ||||
University, 2066 Seobu-Ro, Jangan-Gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi-Do 16419, | ||||
Republic of Korea, Phone: +82 31 299 4106, Fax: +82 31 290 7996, | ||||
EMail: chrisshen@skku.edu, URI: https://chrisshen.github.io | ||||
Michelle Wetterwald | ||||
FBConsulting, 21, Route de Luxembourg, Wasserbillig, Luxembourg | ||||
L-6633, Luxembourg, EMail: Michelle.Wetterwald@gmail.com | ||||
Author's Address | Author's Address | |||
Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong (editor) | Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong (editor) | |||
Department of Computer Science and Engineering | Department of Computer Science and Engineering | |||
Sungkyunkwan University | Sungkyunkwan University | |||
2066 Seobu-Ro, Jangan-Gu | 2066 Seobu-Ro, Jangan-Gu | |||
Suwon | Suwon | |||
Gyeonggi-Do | Gyeonggi-Do | |||
16419 | 16419 | |||
End of changes. 20 change blocks. | ||||
62 lines changed or deleted | 114 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ |