Skip to main content

Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW) Use Cases

The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 9450.
Authors Carlos J. Bernardos , Georgios Z. Papadopoulos , Pascal Thubert , Fabrice Theoleyre
Last updated 2023-09-11 (Latest revision 2023-04-17)
Replaces draft-bernardos-raw-use-cases
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status Informational
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Associated WG milestones
Sep 2020
Working Group Adoption of Use Cases Document
Mar 2022
Use Cases Document submit to IESG
Document shepherd Corinna Schmitt
Shepherd write-up Show Last changed 2022-02-23
IESG IESG state Became RFC 9450 (Informational)
Action Holders
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD John Scudder
Send notices to
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA action state No IANA Actions
RAW                                                   CJ. Bernardos, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                      UC3M
Intended status: Informational                         G.Z. Papadopoulos
Expires: 19 October 2023                                  IMT Atlantique
                                                              P. Thubert
                                                            F. Theoleyre
                                                           17 April 2023

                             RAW Use-Cases


   The wireless medium presents significant specific challenges to
   achieve properties similar to those of wired deterministic networks.
   At the same time, a number of use-cases cannot be solved with wires
   and justify the extra effort of going wireless.  This document
   presents wireless use-cases (such as aeronautical communications,
   amusement parks, industrial applications, pro audio and video,
   gaming, UAV and V2V control, edge robotics and emergency vehicles)
   demanding reliable and available behavior.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 19 October 2023.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Aeronautical Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.3.  Challenges  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.4.  The Need for Wireless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.5.  Requirements for RAW  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.5.1.  Non-latency critical considerations . . . . . . . . .   9
   3.  Amusement Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.1.  Use-Case Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.2.  Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.3.  The Need for Wireless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.4.  Requirements for RAW  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       3.4.1.  Non-latency critical considerations . . . . . . . . .  12
   4.  Wireless for Industrial Applications  . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.1.  Use-Case Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.2.  Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.2.1.  Control Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.2.2.  Monitoring and diagnostics  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.3.  The Need for Wireless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.4.  Requirements for RAW  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.4.1.  Non-latency critical considerations . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.  Pro Audio and Video . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     5.1.  Use-Case Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.2.  Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       5.2.1.  Uninterrupted Stream Playback . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       5.2.2.  Synchronized Stream Playback  . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.3.  The Need for Wireless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.4.  Requirements for RAW  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       5.4.1.  Non-latency critical considerations . . . . . . . . .  16
   6.  Wireless Gaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     6.1.  Use-Case Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     6.2.  Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     6.3.  The Need for Wireless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     6.4.  Requirements for RAW  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       6.4.1.  Non-latency critical considerations . . . . . . . . .  19

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

   7.  Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Vehicle-to-Vehicle platooning and
           control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     7.1.  Use-Case Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     7.2.  Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     7.3.  The Need for Wireless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     7.4.  Requirements for RAW  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       7.4.1.  Non-latency critical considerations . . . . . . . . .  20
   8.  Edge Robotics control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     8.1.  Use-Case Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     8.2.  Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     8.3.  The Need for Wireless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     8.4.  Requirements for RAW  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       8.4.1.  Non-latency critical considerations . . . . . . . . .  22
   9.  Instrumented emergency medical vehicles . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     9.1.  Use-Case Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     9.2.  Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     9.3.  The Need for Wireless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     9.4.  Requirements for RAW  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       9.4.1.  Non-latency critical considerations . . . . . . . . .  23
   10. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   14. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29

1.  Introduction

   Based on time, resource reservation, and policy enforcement by
   distributed shapers, deterministic networking (DetNet) provides the
   capability to carry specified unicast or multicast data streams for
   real-time applications with extremely low data loss rates and bounded
   latency, so as to support time-sensitive and mission-critical
   applications on a converged enterprise infrastructure.

   Deterministic networking aims at eliminating packet loss for a
   committed bandwidth while ensuring a worst case end-to-end latency,
   regardless of the network conditions and across technologies.  By
   leveraging lower layer (Layer 2 and below) capabilities, L3 can
   exploit the use of a service layer, steering over multiple
   technologies, and using media independent signaling to provide high
   reliability, precise time delivery, and rate enforcement.
   Deterministic networking can be seen as a set of new Quality of
   Service (QoS) guarantees of worst-case delivery.  IP networks become
   more deterministic when the effects of statistical multiplexing
   (jitter and collision loss) are mostly eliminated.  This requires a
   tight control of the physical resources to maintain the amount of
   traffic within the physical capabilities of the underlying

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

   technology, e.g., using time-shared resources (bandwidth and buffers)
   per circuit, and/or by shaping and/or scheduling the packets at every

   Key attributes of Deterministic networking include:

   *  time synchronization on all the nodes,

   *  multi-technology path with co-channel interference minimization,

   *  frame preemption and guard time mechanisms to ensure a worst-case
      delay, and

   *  new traffic shapers within and at the edge to protect the network.

   Wireless operates on a shared medium, and transmissions cannot be
   guaranteed to be fully deterministic due to uncontrolled
   interferences, including self-induced multipath fading.  The term RAW
   stands for Reliable and Available Wireless, and refers to the
   mechanisms aimed for providing high reliability and availability for
   IP connectivity over a wireless medium.  Making Wireless Reliable and
   Available is even more challenging than it is with wires, due to the
   numerous causes of loss in transmission that add up to the congestion
   losses and the delays caused by overbooked shared resources.

   The wireless and wired media are fundamentally different at the
   physical level, and while the generic Problem Statement [RFC8557] for
   DetNet applies to the wired as well as the wireless medium, the
   methods to achieve RAW necessarily differ from those used to support
   Time-Sensitive Networking over wires, e.g., due to the wireless radio
   channel specifics.

   So far, open standards for deterministic networking have prevalently
   been focused on wired media, with Audio/Video Bridging (AVB) and Time
   Sensitive Networking (TSN) at the IEEE and DetNet [RFC8655] at the
   IETF.  But wires cannot be used in several cases, including mobile or
   rotating devices, rehabilitated industrial buildings, wearable or in-
   body sensory devices, vehicle automation and multiplayer gaming.

   Purpose-built wireless technologies such as [ISA100], which
   incorporates IPv6, were developed and deployed to cope with the lack
   of open standards, but they yield a high cost in OPEX and CAPEX and
   are limited to very few industries, e.g., process control, concert
   instruments or racing.

   This is now changing [I-D.ietf-raw-technologies]:

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

   *  IMT-2020 has recognized Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communication
      (URLLC) as a key functionality for the upcoming 5G.

   *  IEEE 802.11 has identified a set of real-applications
      [IEEE80211-RT-TIG] which may use the IEEE802.11 standards.  They
      typically emphasize strict end-to-end delay requirements.

   *  The IETF has produced an IPv6 stack for IEEE Std. 802.15.4
      TimeSlotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) and an architecture [RFC9030]
      that enables RAW on a shared MAC.

   Experiments have already been conducted with IEEE802.1 TSN over
   IEEE802.11be [IEEE80211BE].  This mode enables time synchronization,
   and time-aware scheduling (trigger based access mode) to support TSN

   This document extends the "Deterministic Networking use-cases"
   document [RFC8578] and describes several additional use-cases which
   require "reliable/predictable and available" flows over wireless
   links and possibly complex multi-hop paths called Tracks.  This is
   covered mainly by the "Wireless for Industrial Applications" use-
   case, as the "Cellular Radio" is mostly dedicated to the (wired) link
   part of a Radio Access Network (RAN).  Whereas the "Wireless for
   Industrial Applications" use-case certainly covers an area of
   interest for RAW, it is limited to 6TiSCH, and thus its scope is
   narrower than the use-cases described next in this document.

2.  Aeronautical Communications

   Aircraft are currently connected to ATC (Air-Traffic Control) and AOC
   (Airline Operational Control) via voice and data communication
   systems through all phases of a flight.  Within the airport terminal,
   connectivity is focused on high bandwidth communications while en-
   route high reliability, robustness and range are the focus.

2.1.  Problem Statement

   Up to 2020, civil air traffic has been growing constantly at a
   compound rate of 5.8% per year [ACI19] and despite the severe impact
   of the COVID-19 pandemic, air traffic growth is expected to resume
   very quickly in post-pandemic times [IAT20] [IAC20].  Thus, legacy
   systems in air traffic management (ATM) are likely to reach their
   capacity limits and the need for new aeronautical communication
   technologies becomes apparent.  Especially problematic is the
   saturation of VHF band in high density areas in Europe, the US, and
   Asia [KEAV20] [FAA20] calling for suitable new digital approaches
   such as AeroMACS for airport communications, SatCOM for remote
   domains, and LDACS as long-range terrestrial aeronautical

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

   communication system.  Making the frequency spectrum's usage more
   efficient a transition from analog voice to digital data
   communication [PLA14] is necessary to cope with the expected growth
   of civil aviation and its supporting infrastructure.  A promising
   candidate for long range terrestrial communications, already in the
   process of being standardized in the International Civil Aviation
   Organization (ICAO), is the L-band Digital Aeronautical Communication
   System (LDACS) [ICAO18] [I-D.ietf-raw-ldacs].

   Note that the large scale of the planned low Earth orbit (LEO)
   constellations can provide fast end-to-end latency rates and high
   data-rates at a reasonable cost, but they also pose challenges such
   as frequent handovers, high-interference, and a diverse range of
   system users, which can create security issues since both safety-
   critical and non-safety-critical communications can take place on the
   same system.  Some studies suggest that LEO constellations could be a
   complete solution for aeronautical communications, but they do not
   offer solutions for the critical issues mentioned earlier.
   Additionally, of the three communication domains defined by ICAO,
   only passenger entertainment services can currently be provided using
   these constellations.  Safety-critical aeronautical communications
   require reliability levels above 99.999%, which is higher than that
   required for regular commercial data links.  Therefore, addressing
   the issues with LEO-based SatCOM is necessary before these solutions
   can reliably support safety-critical data transmission [Maurer2022].

2.2.  Specifics

   During the creation process of new communication system, analog voice
   is replaced by digital data communication.  This sets a paradigm
   shift from analog to digital wireless communications and supports the
   related trend towards increased autonomous data processing that the
   Future Communications Infrastructure (FCI) in civil aviation must
   provide.  The FCI is depicted in Figure 1:

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

#         #
#          # #
#            #   #
#             #      #
#               #        #
#                #          #
#                  #            #
# Satellite-based   #              #
#   Communications   #                 #
#      SatCOM (#)     #                   #
#                      #                    Aircraft
#                       #                 %         %
#                        #              %             %
#                         #           %     Air-Air     %
#                          #        %     Communications   %
#                           #     %         LDACS A/A (%)    %
#                           #   %                              %
#                            Aircraft  % % % % % % % % % %  Aircraft
#                                 |           Air-Ground           |
#                                 |         Communications         |
#                                 |           LDACS A/G (|)        |
#      Communications in          |                                |
#    and around airports          |                                |
#         AeroMACS (-)            |                                |
#                                 |                                |
#         Aircraft-------------+  |                                |
#                              |  |                                |
#                              |  |                                |
#         Ground network       |  |         Ground network         |
SatCOM <---------------------> Airport <----------------------> LDACS
ground                          ground                          ground
transceiver                   transceiver                    transceiver

  Figure 1: The Future Communication Infrastructure (FCI): AeroMACS
     for Airport/ Termina Maneuvering Area domain, LDACS A/G for
    Terminal Maneuvering/ En-Route domain, LDACS A/G for En-Route/
   Oceanic, Remote, Polar domain, SatCOM for Oceanic, Remote, Polar
                     domain domain communications

2.3.  Challenges

   This paradigm change brings a lot of new challenges:

   *  Efficiency: It is necessary to keep latency, time and data
      overhead of new aeronautical datalinks at a minimum.

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

   *  Modularity: Systems in avionics usually operate up to 30 years,
      thus solutions must be modular, easily adaptable and updatable.

   *  Interoperability: All 192 members of the international Civil
      Aviation Organization (ICAO) must be able to use these solutions.

   *  Dynamicity: the communication infrastructure needs to accommodate
      mobile devices (airplanes) that move extremely fast.

2.4.  The Need for Wireless

   In a high mobility environment such as aviation, the envisioned
   solutions to provide worldwide coverage of data connections with in-
   flight aircraft require a multi-system, multi-link, multi-hop
   approach.  Thus air, ground and space-based datalink providing
   technologies will have to operate seamlessly together to cope with
   the increasing needs of data exchange between aircraft, air traffic
   controller, airport infrastructure, airlines, air network service
   providers (ANSPs) and so forth.  Wireless technologies have to be
   used to tackle this enormous need for a worldwide digital
   aeronautical datalink infrastructure.

2.5.  Requirements for RAW

   Different safety levels need to be supported.  All network traffic
   handled by the Airborne Internet Protocol Suite (IPS) System is not
   equal and the Quality of Service (QoS) requirements of each network
   traffic flow must be considered n order to avoid having to support
   QoS requirements at the granularity of data flows, these flows are
   grouped into classes that have similar requirements, following the
   DiffServ approach [ARINC858P1].  These classes are referred to as
   Classes of Service (CoS) and flows within a class are treated
   uniformly from a QoS perspective.  Currently, there are at least
   eight different priority levels (CoS) that can be assigned to
   packets.  For example, a high-priority message requiring low latency
   and high resiliency could be a "WAKE" warning indicating two aircraft
   are dangerously close to each other, while a less safety-critical
   message with low-medium latency requirements could be the "WXGRAPH"
   service providing graphical weather data.

   Overhead needs to be kept at a minimum since aeronautical data links
   provide comparatively small data rates on the order of kbit/s.

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

   Policy needs to be supported when selecting data links.  The focus of
   RAW here should be on the selectors, responsible for the track a
   packet takes to reach its end destination.  This would minimize the
   amount of routing information that must travel inside the network
   because of precomputed routing tables with the selector being
   responsible for choosing the most appropriate option according to
   policy and safety.

2.5.1.  Non-latency critical considerations

   Achieving low latency is a requirement for aeronautics
   communications, though the expected latency is not extremely low and
   what is important is to keep the overall latency bounded under a
   certain threshold.  Low latency in LDACS communications [RFC9372]
   translates to a latency in the Forward Link (FL - Ground -> Air) of
   30-90 ms and a latency in the Reverse Link (RL - Air -> Ground) of
   60-120 ms.  This use-case is not latency-critical from that view
   point.  On the other hand, given the controlled environment, end-to-
   end mechanisms can be applied to guarantee bounded latency where

3.  Amusement Parks

3.1.  Use-Case Description

   The digitalization of Amusement Parks is expected to decrease
   significantly the cost for maintaining the attractions.  Such
   deployment is a mix between multimedia (e.g., Virtual and Augmented
   Reality, interactive video environments) and non-multimedia
   applications (e.g, industrial automation for a roller-coaster, access

   Attractions may rely on a large set of sensors and actuators, which
   react in real time.  Typical applications comprise:

   *  Emergency: the safety of the operators / visitors has to be
      preserved and the attraction must be stopped appropriately when a
      failure is detected.

   *  Video: augmented and virtual realities are integrated in the
      attraction.  Wearable mobile devices (e.g., glasses, virtual
      reality headset) need to offload one part of the processing tasks.

   *  Real-time interactions: visitors may interact with an attraction,
      like in a real-time video game.  The visitors may virtually
      interact with their environment, triggering actions in the real
      world (through actuators) [KOB12].

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

   *  Geolocation: visitors are tracked with a personal wireless tag so
      that their user experience is improved.  This requires special
      care to ensure that visitors' privacy is not breached, and users
      are anonymously tracked.

   *  Predictive maintenance: statistics are collected to predict the
      future failures, or to compute later more complex statistics about
      the attraction's usage, the downtime, etc.

   *  Marketing: to improve the customer experience, owners may collect
      a large amount of data to understand the behavior, and the choice
      of their clients.

3.2.  Specifics

   Amusement parks comprise a variable number of attractions, mostly
   outdoor, over a large geographical area.  The IT infrastructure is
   typically multi-scale:

   *  Local area: the sensors and actuators controlling the attractions
      are co-located.  Control loops trigger only local traffic, with a
      small end-to-end delay, typically less than 10 ms, like classical
      industrial systems [IEEE80211-RT-TIG].

   *  Wearable mobile devices are free to move in the park.  They
      exchange traffic locally (identification, personalization,
      multimedia) or globally (billing, child tracking).

   *  Computationally intensive applications offload some tasks.  Edge
      computing seems an efficient way to implement real-time
      applications with offloading.  Some non-time-critical tasks may
      rather use the cloud (predictive maintenance, marketing).

3.3.  The Need for Wireless

   Removing cables helps to change easily the configuration of the
   attractions, or to upgrade parts of them at a lower cost.  The
   attraction can be designed modularly, upgrade or insert novel modules
   later in the lifecycle of the attraction.  Novelty of attractions
   tends to increase the attractiveness of an amusement park,
   encouraging previous visitors to visit regularly the park.

   Some parts of the attraction are mobile, like trucks of a roller-
   coaster or robots.  Since cables are prone to frequent failures in
   this situation, wireless transmissions are recommended.

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

   Wearable devices are extensively used for a user experience
   personalization.  They typically need to support wireless
   transmissions.  Personal tags may help to reduce the operating costs
   [DISNEY15] and to increase the number of charged services provided to
   the audience (e.g., VIP tickets or interactivity).  Some applications
   rely on more sophisticated wearable devices such as digital glasses
   or Virtual Reality (VR) headsets for an immersive experience.

3.4.  Requirements for RAW

   The network infrastructure must support heterogeneous traffic, with
   very different critical requirements.  Thus, flow isolation must be

   The transmissions must be scheduled appropriately even in presence of
   mobile devices.  While the [RFC9030] already proposes an architecture
   for synchronized, IEEE Std. 802.15.4 Time-Slotted Channel Hopping
   (TSCH) networks, the industry requires a multi-technology solution,
   able to guarantee end-to-end requirements across heterogeneous
   technologies, with strict SLA requirements.

   Nowadays, long-range wireless transmissions are used mostly for best-
   effort traffic.  On the contrary, [IEEE802.1TSN] is used for critical
   flows using Ethernet devices.  However, we need an IP enabled
   technology to interconnect large areas, independent of the PHY and
   MAC layers.

   It is expected that several different technologies (long vs. short
   range) are deployed, which have to cohabit in the same area.  Thus,
   we need to provide layer-3 mechanisms able to exploit multiple co-
   interfering technologies (i.e., different radio technologies using
   overlapping spectrum, and therefore, potentially interfering to each

   It is worth noting that low-priority flows (e.g., predictive
   maintenance, marketing) are delay tolerant: a few minutes or even
   hours would be acceptable.  While classical unscheduled wireless
   networks already accomodate best-effort traffic, this would force
   several colocated and subefficient deployments.  Unused resources
   could rather be used for low-priority flows.  Indeed, allocated
   resources are consuming energy in most scheduled networks, even if no
   traffic is transmitted.

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

3.4.1.  Non-latency critical considerations

   While some of the applications in this use-case involve control loops
   (e.g., sensors and actuators) that require bounded latencies below 10
   ms, that can therefore be considered latency critical, there are
   other applications as well that mostly demand reliability (e.g.,
   safety related, or maintenance).

4.  Wireless for Industrial Applications

4.1.  Use-Case Description

   A major use-case for networking in Industrial environments is the
   control networks where periodic control loops operate between a
   collection of sensors that measure a physical property such as the
   temperature of a fluid, a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) that
   decides an action such as warm up the mix, and actuators that perform
   the required action, such as the injection of power in a resistor.

4.2.  Specifics

4.2.1.  Control Loops

   Process Control designates continuous processing operations, like
   heating oil in a refinery or mixing drinking soda.  Control loops in
   the Process Control industry operate at a very low rate, typically
   four times per second.  Factory Automation, on the other hand, deals
   with discrete goods such as individual automobile parts, and requires
   faster loops, on the order of milliseconds.  Motion control that
   monitors dynamic activities may require even faster rates on the
   order of and below the millisecond.

   In all those cases, a packet must flow reliably between the sensor
   and the PLC, be processed by the PLC, and sent to the actuator within
   the control loop period.  In some particular use-cases that inherit
   from analog operations, jitter might also alter the operation of the
   control loop.  A rare packet loss is usually admissible, but
   typically a loss of multiple packets in a row will cause an emergency
   halt of the production and incur a high cost for the manufacturer.

   Additional details and use-cases related to Industrial applications
   and their RAW requirements can be found in

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

4.2.2.  Monitoring and diagnostics

   A secondary use-case deals with monitoring and diagnostics.  This
   data is essential to improve the performance of a production line,
   e.g., by optimizing real-time processing or maintenance windows using
   Machine Learning predictions.  For the lack of wireless technologies,
   some specific industries such as Oil and Gas have been using serial
   cables, literally by the millions, to perform their process
   optimization over the previous decades.  But few industries would
   afford the associated cost.  One of the goals of the Industrial
   Internet of Things is to provide the same benefits to all industries,
   including SmartGrid, Transportation, Building, Commercial and
   Medical.  This requires a cheap, available and scalable IP-based
   access technology.

   Inside the factory, wires may already be available to operate the
   Control Network.  But monitoring and diagnostics data are not welcome
   in that network for several reasons.  On the one hand it is rich and
   asynchronous, meaning that it may influence the deterministic nature
   of the control operations and impact the production.  On the other
   hand, this information must be reported to the operators over IP,
   which means the potential for a security breach via the
   interconnection of the Operational Technology (OT) network with the
   Internet technology (IT) network and possibly enable a rogue access.

4.3.  The Need for Wireless

   Wires used on a robot arm are prone to breakage after a few thousands
   flexions, a lot faster than a power cable that is wider in diameter,
   and more resilient.  In general, wired networking and mobile parts
   are not a good match, mostly in the case of fast and recurrent
   activities, as well as rotation.

   When refurbishing older premises that were built before the Internet
   age, power is usually available everywhere, but data is not.  It is
   often impractical, time consuming and expensive to deploy an Ethernet
   fabric across walls and between buildings.  Deploying a wire may take
   months and cost tens of thousands of US Dollars.

   Even when wiring exists, like in the case of an existing control
   network, asynchronous IP packets such as diagnostics may not be
   welcome for operational and security reasons.  For those packets, the
   option to create a parallel wireless network offers a credible
   solution that can scale with the many sensors and actuators that
   equip every robot, every valve and fan that are deployed on the
   factory floor.  It may also help detect and prevent a failure that
   could impact the production, like the degradation (vibration) of a
   cooling fan on the ceiling.  IEEE Std. 802.15.4 Time-Slotted Channel

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

   Hopping (TSCH) [RFC7554] is a promising technology for that purpose,
   mostly if the scheduled operations enable to use the same network by
   asynchronous and deterministic flows in parallel.

4.4.  Requirements for RAW

   As stated by the "Deterministic Networking Problem Statement"
   [RFC8557], a deterministic network is backwards compatible with
   (capable of transporting) statistically multiplexed traffic while
   preserving the properties of the accepted deterministic flows.  While
   the 6TiSCH Architecture [RFC9030] serves that requirement, the work
   at 6TiSCH was focused on best-effort IPv6 packet flows.  RAW should
   be able to lock so-called hard cells (i.e., scheduled cells
   [I-D.ietf-6tisch-terminology]) for use by a centralized scheduler,
   and leverage time and spatial diversity over a graph of end-to-end
   paths called a Track that is based on those cells.

   Over the course of the recent years, major Industrial Protocols
   (e.g., [ODVA] with EtherNet/IP [EIP] and [PROFINET]) have been
   migrating towards Ethernet and IP.  In order to unleash the full
   power of the IP hourglass model, it should be possible to deploy any
   application over any network that has the physical capacity to
   transport the industrial flow, regardless of the MAC/PHY technology,
   wired or wireless, and across technologies.  RAW mechanisms should be
   able to setup a Track over a wireless access segment and a wired or
   wireless backbone to report both sensor data and critical monitoring
   within a bounded latency and maintain the high reliability of the
   flows over time.  It is also important to ensure that RAW solutions
   are interoperable with existing wireless solutions in place, and with
   legacy equipment whose capabilities can be extended using
   retrofitting.  Maintainability, as a broader concept than reliability
   is also important in industrial scenarios [MAR19].

4.4.1.  Non-latency critical considerations

   Monitoring and diagnostics applications do not require latency
   critical communications, but demand reliable and scalable
   communications.  On the other hand, process control applications
   involve control loops that require a bounded latency, thus are
   latency critical, but can be managed end-to-end, and therefore DetNet
   mechanisms can be applied in conjunction with RAW mechanisms.

5.  Pro Audio and Video

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023               [Page 14]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

5.1.  Use-Case Description

   Many devices support audio and video streaming [RFC9317] by employing
   802.11 wireless LAN.  Some of these applications require low latency
   capability.  For instance, when the application provides interactive
   play, or when the audio plays in real time - meaning live for public
   addresses in train stations or in theme parks.

   The professional audio and video industry ("ProAV") includes:

   *  Virtual Reality / Augmented Reality (VR/AR)

   *  Production and post-production systems such as CD and Blu-ray disk

   *  Public address, media and emergency systems at large venues (e.g.,
      airports, train stations, stadiums, and theme parks).

5.2.  Specifics

5.2.1.  Uninterrupted Stream Playback

   Considering the uninterrupted audio or video stream, a potential
   packet loss during the transmission of audio or video flows cannot be
   tackled by re-trying the transmission, as it is done with file
   transfer, because by the time the packet lost has been identified it
   is too late to proceed with packet re-transmission.  Buffering might
   be employed to provide a certain delay which will allow for one or
   more re-transmissions, however such approach is not viable in
   application where delays are not acceptable.

5.2.2.  Synchronized Stream Playback

   In the context of ProAV over packet networks, latency is the time
   between the transmitted signal over a stream and its reception.
   Thus, for sound to remain synchronized to the movement in the video,
   the latency of both the audio and video streams must be bounded and

5.3.  The Need for Wireless

   The devices need the wireless communication to support video
   streaming via IEEE 802.11 wireless LAN for instance.  Wireless
   communications provide huge advantages in terms of simpler
   deployments in many scenarios, where the use of a wired alternative
   would not be feasible.  Similarly, in live events, mobility support
   makes wireless communications the only viable approach.

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023               [Page 15]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

   Deployed announcement speakers, for instance along the platforms of
   the train stations, need the wireless communication to forward the
   audio traffic in real time.  Most train stations are already built,
   and deploying novel cables for each novel service seems expensive.

5.4.  Requirements for RAW

   The network infrastructure needs to support heterogeneous types of
   traffic (including QoS).

   Content delivery with bounded (lowest possible) latency.

   The deployed network topology should allow for multipath.  This will
   enable for multiple streams to have different (and multiple) paths
   (tracks) through the network to support redundancy.

5.4.1.  Non-latency critical considerations

   For synchronized streaming, latency must be bounded, and therefore,
   depending on the actual requirements, this can be considered as
   latency critical.  However, the most critical requirement of this
   use-case is reliability, by the network providing redundancy.  Note
   that in many cases, wireless is only present in the access, where RAW
   mechanisms could be applied, but other wired segments are also
   involved (like the Internet), and therefore latency cannot be

6.  Wireless Gaming

6.1.  Use-Case Description

   The gaming industry includes [IEEE80211RTA] real-time mobile gaming,
   wireless console gaming, wireless gaming controllers and cloud
   gaming.  Note that they are not mutually exclusive (e.g., a console
   can connect wirelessly to the Internet to play a cloud game).  For
   RAW, wireless console gaming is the most relevant one.  We next
   summarize the four:

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023               [Page 16]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

   *  Real-time Mobile Gaming: Different from traditional games, real
      time mobile gaming is very sensitive to network latency and
      stability.  The mobile game can connect multiple players together
      in a single game session and exchange data messages between game
      server and connected players.  Real-time means the feedback should
      present on screen as users operate in game.  For good game
      experience, the end-to-end (E2E) latency plus game servers
      processing time must be the same for all players and should not be
      noticeable as the game is played.  RAW technologies might help in
      keeping latencies low on the wireless segments of the

   *  Wireless Console Gaming: while gamers may use a physical console,
      interactions with a remote server may be required for online
      games.  Most of the gaming consoles today support Wi-Fi 5, but may
      benefit from a scheduled access with Wi-Fi 6 in the future.
      Previous Wi-Fi versions have an especially bad reputation among
      the gaming community.  The main reasons are high latency, lag
      spikes, and jitter.

   *  Wireless Gaming controllers: most controllers are now wireless for
      a freedom of movement.Controllers may interact with consoles or
      directly with gaming server in the cloud.  A low and stable end-
      to-end latency is here of predominant importance.

   *  Cloud Gaming: The cloud gaming requires low latency capability as
      the user commands in a game session need to be sent back to the
      cloud server, the cloud server would update game context depending
      on the received commands, and the cloud server would render the
      picture/video to be displayed at user devices and stream the
      picture/video content to the user devices.  User devices might
      very likely be connected wirelessly.

6.2.  Specifics

   While a lot of details can be found on [IEEE80211RTA], we next
   summarize the main requirements in terms of latency, jitter and
   packet loss:

   *  Intra Basic Service Set (BSS) latency is less than 5 ms.

   *  Jitter variance is less than 2 ms.

   *  Packet loss is less than 0.1 percent.

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023               [Page 17]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

6.3.  The Need for Wireless

   Gaming is evolving towards wireless, as players demand being able to
   play anywhere, and the game requires a more immersive experience
   including body movements.  Besides, the industry is changing towards
   playing from mobile phones, which are inherently connected via
   wireless technologies.  Wireless controllers are the rule in modern
   gaming, with increasingly sophisticated interactions (e.g., haptic
   feedback, augmented reality).

6.4.  Requirements for RAW

   *  Time sensitive networking extensions: extensions, such as time-
      aware shaping and redundancy can be explored to address congestion
      and reliability problems present in wireless networks.  As an
      example, in haptics it is very important to minimize latency

   *  Priority tagging (Stream identification): one basic requirement to
      provide better QoS for time-sensitive traffic is the capability to
      identify and differentiate time-sensitive packets from other (like
      best-effort) traffic.

   *  Time-aware shaping: this capability (defined in IEEE 802.1Qbv)
      consists of gates to control the opening/closing of queues that
      share a common egress port within an Ethernet switch.  A scheduler
      defines the times when each queue opens or close, therefore
      eliminating congestion and ensuring that frames are delivered
      within the expected latency bounds.  Note though, that while this
      requirement needs to be signalled by RAW mechanisms, it would be
      actually served by the lower layer.

   *  Dual/multiple link: due to the fact that competitions and
      interference are common and hardly in control under wireless
      network, to improve the latency stability, dual/multiple link
      proposal is brought up to address this issue.

   *  Admission Control: congestion is a major cause of high/variable
      latency and it is well known that if the traffic load exceeds the
      capability of the link, QoS will be degraded.  QoS degradation may
      be acceptable for many applications today, however emerging time-
      sensitive applications are highly susceptible to increased latency
      and jitter.  To better control QoS, it is important to control
      access to the network resources.

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023               [Page 18]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

6.4.1.  Non-latency critical considerations

   Depending on the actual scenario, and on use of Internet to
   interconnect different users, the communication requirements of this
   use-case might be considered as latency critical due to the need of
   bounded latency.  But note that in most of these scenarios, part of
   the communication path is not wireless and DetNet mechanisms cannot
   be applied easily (e.g., when the public Internet is involved), and
   therefore in these cases, reliability is the critical requirement.

7.  Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Vehicle-to-Vehicle platooning and

7.1.  Use-Case Description

   Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are becoming very popular for many
   different applications, including military and civil use-cases.  The
   term drone is commonly used to refer to a UAV.

   UAVs can be used to perform aerial surveillance activities, traffic
   monitoring (i.e., the Spanish traffic control has recently introduced
   a fleet of drones for quicker reactions upon traffic congestion
   related events [DGT2021]), support of emergency situations, and even
   transportation of small goods (e.g., medicine in rural areas).  Note
   that the surveillance and monitoring application would have to comply
   with local regulations regarding location privacy of users.
   Different considerations have to be applied when surveillance is
   performed for traffic rules enforcement (e.g., generating fines) as
   compared to when traffic load is being monitored.

   Many types of vehicles, including UAVs but also others, such as cars,
   can travel in platoons, driving together with shorter distances
   between vehicles to increase efficiency.  Platooning imposes certain
   vehicle-to-vehicle considerations, most of these are applicable to
   both UAVs and other vehicle types.

   UAVs/vehicles typically have various forms of wireless connectivity:

   *  Cellular: for communication with the control center, for remote
      maneuvering as well as monitoring of the drone;

   *  IEEE 802.11: for inter-drone communications (i.e., platooning) and
      providing connectivity to other devices (i.e., acting as Access

   Note that autonomous cars share many of the characteristics of the
   aforemention UAV case, and therefore it is of interest for RAW.

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023               [Page 19]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

7.2.  Specifics

   Some of the use-cases/tasks involving UAVs require coordination among
   UAVs.  Others involve complex compute tasks that might not be
   performed using the limited computing resources that a drone
   typically has.  These two aspects require continuous connectivity
   with the control center and among UAVs.

   Remote maneuvering of a drone might be performed over a cellular
   network in some cases, however, there are situations that need very
   low latency and deterministic behavior of the connectivity.  Examples
   involve platooning of drones or sharing of computing resources among
   drones (like, a drone offload some function to a neighboring drone).

7.3.  The Need for Wireless

   UAVs cannot be connected through any type of wired media, so it is
   obvious that wireless is needed.

7.4.  Requirements for RAW

   The network infrastructure is composed by the UAVs themselves,
   requiring self-configuration capabilities.

   Heterogeneous types of traffic need to be supported, from extremely
   critical ones requiring ultra-low latency and high resiliency, to
   traffic requiring low-medium latency.

   When a given service is decomposed into functions -- hosted at
   different UAVs -- chained, each link connecting two given functions
   would have a well-defined set of requirements (e.g., latency,
   bandwidth and jitter) that must be met.

7.4.1.  Non-latency critical considerations

   Today's solutions keep the processing operations that are critical
   local (i.e., they are not offloaded).  Therefore, in this use-case,
   the critical requirement is reliability, and only for some platooning
   and inter-drone communications latency is critical.

8.  Edge Robotics control

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023               [Page 20]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

8.1.  Use-Case Description

   The Edge Robotics scenario consists of several robots, deployed in a
   given area (like a shopping mall), inter-connected via an access
   network to a network edge device or a data center.  The robots are
   connected to the edge so complex computational activities are not
   executed locally at the robots but offloaded to the edge.  This
   brings additional flexibility in the type of tasks that the robots
   do, as well as reducing the costs of robot manufacturing (due to
   their lower complexity), and enabling complex tasks involving
   coordination among robots (that can be more easily performed if
   robots are centrally controlled).

   Simple examples of the use of multiple robots are cleaning, video
   surveillance (note that this have to comply with local regulations
   regarding user's privacy at the application level), search and rescue
   operations, and delivering of goods from warehouses to shops.
   Multiple robots are simultaneously instructed to perform individual
   tasks by moving the robotic intelligence from the robots to the
   network's edge.  That enables easy synchronization, scalable
   solution, and on-demand option to create flexible fleet of robots.

   Robots would have various forms of wireless connectivity:

   *  IEEE 802.11: for connection to the edge and also inter-robot
      communications (i.e., for coordinated actions).

   *  Cellular: as an additional communication link to the edge, though
      primarily as backup, since ultra-low latency is needed.

8.2.  Specifics

   Some of the use-cases/tasks involving robots might benefit from
   decomposition of a service in small functions that are distributed
   and chained among robots and the edge.  These require continuous
   connectivity with the control center and among drones.

   Robot control is an activity requiring very low latency (0.5-20 ms
   [Groshev2021]) between the robot and the location where the control
   intelligence resides (which might be the edge or another robot).

8.3.  The Need for Wireless

   Deploying robots in scenarios such as shopping malls for the
   applications mentioned cannot be done via wired connectivity.

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023               [Page 21]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

8.4.  Requirements for RAW

   The network infrastructure needs to support heterogeneous types of
   traffic, from robot control to video streaming.

   When a given service is decomposed into functions -- hosted at
   different robots -- chained, each link connecting two given functions
   would have a well-defined set of requirements (latency, bandwidth and
   jitter) that must be met.

8.4.1.  Non-latency critical considerations

   This use-case might combine multiple communication flows, with some
   of them being latency critical (like those related to robot control
   tasks).  Note that there are still many communication flows (like
   some offloading tasks) that only demand reliability and availability.

9.  Instrumented emergency medical vehicles

9.1.  Use-Case Description

   An instrumented ambulance would be one that one or multiple network
   segments to which are connected these end systems such as:

   *  vital signs sensors attached to the casualty in the ambulance.
      Relay medical data to hospital emergency room,

   *  radio-navigation sensor to relay position data to various
      destinations including dispatcher,

   *  voice communication for ambulance attendant (like to consult with
      ER doctor), and

   *  voice communication between driver and dispatcher.

   The LAN needs to be routed through radio-WANs (a radio network in the
   interior of a network, i.e., it is terminated by routers) to complete
   the network linkage.

9.2.  Specifics

   What we have today is multiple communication systems to reach the
   vehicle via:

   *  A dispatching system,

   *  a cellphone for the attendant,

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023               [Page 22]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

   *  a special purpose telemetering system for medical data,

   *  etc.

   This redundancy of systems does not contribute to availability.

   Most of the scenarios involving the use of an instrumented ambulance
   are composed of many different flows, each of them with slightly
   different requirements in terms of reliability and latency.
   Destinations might be either at the ambulance itself (local traffic),
   at a near edge cloud or at the general Internet/cloud.  Special care
   (at application level) have to be paid to ensuring that sensitive
   data is not disclosed to unauthorized parties, by properly securing
   traffic and authenticating the communication ends.

9.3.  The Need for Wireless

   Local traffic between the first responders/ambulance staff and the
   ambulance equipment cannot be done via wired connectivity as the
   responders perform initial treatment outside of the ambulance.  The
   communications from the ambulance to external services must be
   wireless as well.

9.4.  Requirements for RAW

   We can derive some pertinent requirements from this scenario:

   *  High availability of the inter-network is required.  The exact
      level of availability depends on the specific deployment scenario,
      as not all emergency agencies share the same type of instrumented
      emergency vehicles.

   *  The inter-network needs to operate in damaged state (e.g. during
      an earthquake aftermath, heavy weather, wildfire, etc.).  In
      addition to continuity of operations, rapid restore is a needed

   *  The radio-WAN has characteristics similar to cellphone -- the
      vehicle will travel from one radio coverage area to another, thus
      requiring some hand-off approach.

9.4.1.  Non-latency critical considerations

   In this case, all applications identified do not require latency
   critical communication, but do need high reliability and

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023               [Page 23]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

10.  Summary

   This document enumerates several use-cases and applications that need
   RAW technologies, focusing on the requirements from reliability,
   availability and latency.  Whereas some use-cases are latency-
   critical, there are also several applications that are non-latency
   critical, but that do pose strict reliability and availability

11.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

12.  Security Considerations

   This document covers several representative applications and network
   scenarios that are expected to make use of RAW technologies.  Each of
   the potential RAW use-cases will have security considerations from
   both the use-specific perspective and the RAW technology perspective.
   [RFC9055] provides a comprehensive discussion of security
   considerations in the context of deterministic networking, which are
   generally applicable also to RAW.

13.  Acknowledgments

   Nils Mäurer, Thomas Gräupl and Corinna Schmitt have contributed
   significantly to this document, providing input for the Aeronautical
   communication section.  Rex Buddenberg has also contributed to the
   document, providing input to the Emergency: instrumented emergency
   vehicle section.

   The authors would like to thank Toerless Eckert, Xavi Vilajosana
   Guillen, Rute Sofia, Corinna Schmitt, Victoria Pritchard, John
   Scudder, Joerg Ott and Stewart Bryant for their valuable comments on
   previous versions of this document.

   The work of Carlos J.  Bernardos in this document has been partially
   supported by the Horizon Europe PREDICT-6G (Grant 101095890) and
   UNICO I+D 6G-DATADRIVEN-04 project.

14.  Informative References

   [ACI19]    Airports Council International (ACI), "Annual World
              Aitport Traffic Report 2019", November 2019,

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023               [Page 24]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

              REQUIREMENTS", 2021,

   [DGT2021]  Menendez, J. M., "Drones: asi es la vigilancia", 2021,

   [DISNEY15] Wired, "Disney's $1 Billion Bet on a Magical Wristband",
              March 2015,

   [EIP], "EtherNet/IP provides users with the
              network tools to deploy standard Ethernet technology (IEEE
              802.3 combined with the TCP/IP Suite) for industrial
              automation applications while enabling Internet and
              enterprise connectivity data anytime, anywhere.",

   [FAA20]    U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation
              Administration (FAA), "Next Generation Air Transportation
              System", 2019, <>.

              Groshev, M., Guimaraes, C., de la Oliva, A., and B. Gazda,
              "Dissecting the Impact of Information and Communication
              Technologies on Digital Twins as a Service", IEEE Access,
              vol. 9 , 2021,

              Palattella, M. R., Thubert, P., Watteyne, T., and Q. Wang,
              "Terms Used in IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6tisch-
              terminology-10, 2 March 2018,

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023               [Page 25]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

              Sofia, R. C., Kovatsch, M., and P. Mendes, "Requirements
              for Reliable Wireless Industrial Services", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-raw-industrial-
              requirements-00, 10 December 2021,

              Mäurer, N., Gräupl, T., and C. Schmitt, "L-band Digital
              Aeronautical Communications System (LDACS)", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-raw-ldacs-14, 2
              December 2022, <

              Thubert, P., Cavalcanti, D., Vilajosana, X., Schmitt, C.,
              and J. Farkas, "Reliable and Available Wireless
              Technologies", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-raw-technologies-06, 30 November 2022,

   [IAC20]    Iacus, S.M., Natale, F., Santamaria, C., Spyratos, S., and
              V. Michele, "Estimating and projecting air passenger
              traffic during the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak and its
              socio- economic impact", Safety Science 129 (2020)
              104791 , 2020.

   [IAT20]    International Air Transport Association (IATA), "Economic
              Performance of the Airline Industry", November 2020,

   [ICAO18]   International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), "L-Band
              Digital Aeronautical Communication System (LDACS)",
              International Standards and Recommended Practices Annex 10
              - Aeronautical Telecommunications, Vol. III -
              Communication Systems , 2018.

              IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE
              802.1AS-2011 - IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan
              Area Networks - Timing and Synchronization for Time-
              Sensitive Applications in Bridged Local Area Networks".

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023               [Page 26]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

              IEEE, "IEEE 802.11 Real Time Applications TIG Report",
              November 2018,

              Cavalcanti, D. and G. Venkatesan, "802.1 TSN over 802.11
              with updates from developments in 802.11be", IEEE plenary
              meeting , November 2020,

              IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE 802.11
              Real Time Applications TIG Report", November 2018.

   [ISA100]   ISA/ANSI, "ISA100, Wireless Systems for Automation",

   [KEAV20]   T. Keaveney and C. Stewart, "Single European Sky ATM
              Research Joint Undertaking", 2019,

   [KOB12]    Kober, J., Glisson, M., and M. Mistry, "Playing catch and
              juggling with a humanoid robot.", 2012,

   [MAR19]    Martinez, B., Cano, C., and X. Vilajosana, "A Square Peg
              in a Round Hole: The Complex Path for Wireless in the
              Manufacturing Industry", 2019,

              Maurer, N., Ewert, T., Graupl, T., Schmitt, C., and S.
              Grundner-Culemann, "Security in Digital Aeronautical
              Communications A Comprehensive Gap Analysis",
              International Journal of Critical Infrastructure
              Protection, vol. 38 , 2022,

   [ODVA], "The organization that supports
              network technologies built on the Common Industrial
              Protocol (CIP) including EtherNet/IP.".

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023               [Page 27]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

   [PLA14]    Plass, S., Hermenier, R., Luecke, O., Gomez Depoorter, D.,
              Tordjman, T., Chatterton, M., Amirfeiz, M., Scotti, S.,
              Cheng, Y.J., Pillai, P., Graeupl, T., Durand, F., Murphy,
              K., Marriott, A., and A. Zaytsev, "Flight Trial
              Demonstration of Seamless Aeronautical Networking", IEEE
              Communications Magazine, vol. 52, no. 5 , May 2014.

              a standard for industrial networking in automation.",

   [RFC7554]  Watteyne, T., Ed., Palattella, M., and L. Grieco, "Using
              IEEE 802.15.4e Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) in the
              Internet of Things (IoT): Problem Statement", RFC 7554,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7554, May 2015,

   [RFC8557]  Finn, N. and P. Thubert, "Deterministic Networking Problem
              Statement", RFC 8557, DOI 10.17487/RFC8557, May 2019,

   [RFC8578]  Grossman, E., Ed., "Deterministic Networking Use Cases",
              RFC 8578, DOI 10.17487/RFC8578, May 2019,

   [RFC8655]  Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
              "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,

   [RFC9030]  Thubert, P., Ed., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the Time-
              Slotted Channel Hopping Mode of IEEE 802.15.4 (6TiSCH)",
              RFC 9030, DOI 10.17487/RFC9030, May 2021,

   [RFC9055]  Grossman, E., Ed., Mizrahi, T., and A. Hacker,
              "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security
              Considerations", RFC 9055, DOI 10.17487/RFC9055, June
              2021, <>.

   [RFC9317]  Holland, J., Begen, A., and S. Dawkins, "Operational
              Considerations for Streaming Media", RFC 9317,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9317, October 2022,

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023               [Page 28]
Internet-Draft           RAW Use-Case Scenarios               April 2023

   [RFC9372]  Mäurer, N., Ed., Gräupl, T., Ed., and C. Schmitt, Ed.,
              "L-Band Digital Aeronautical Communications System
              (LDACS)", RFC 9372, DOI 10.17487/RFC9372, March 2023,

Authors' Addresses

   Carlos J. Bernardos (editor)
   Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
   Av. Universidad, 30
   28911 Leganes, Madrid
   Phone: +34 91624 6236

   Georgios Z. Papadopoulos
   IMT Atlantique
   Office B00 - 114A
   2 Rue de la Chataigneraie
   35510 Cesson-Sevigne - Rennes
   Phone: +33 299 12 70 04

   Pascal Thubert
   Cisco Systems, Inc
   Building D
   45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
   06254 MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis
   Phone: +33 497 23 26 34

   Fabrice Theoleyre
   ICube Lab, Pole API
   300 boulevard Sebastien Brant - CS 10413
   67400 Illkirch
   Phone: +33 368 85 45 33

Bernardos, et al.        Expires 19 October 2023               [Page 29]