Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-28

Request Review of draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 30)
Type Telechat Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2022-04-05
Requested 2022-02-28
Authors Jaehoon Paul Jeong
I-D last updated 2022-05-09
Completed reviews Intdir Last Call review of -20 by Pascal Thubert (diff)
Artart Telechat review of -27 by Jim Fenton (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -27 by Pascal Thubert (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -27 by Daniel Migault (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -28 by Daniel Migault (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Daniel Migault
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 28 (document currently at 30)
Result Has nits
Completed 2022-05-09

I am still a bit uncomfortable with the message of the use case 3.3 where
pedestrians or cyclists need to carry a mobile phone to avoid being knocked
down by a car - at least that is how I read it.

The reason is that, in many places, drivers are not paying enough attention to
pedestrians and cyclists - even considering their presence on the road as an
aggression. As a rebound effect your application that aims at providing more
security for the vulnerable pedestrian or cyclist, is likely to result in
walking/cycling being more dangerous. Drivers may rely on that application to
detect the presence of pedestrians and cyclists and defer the responsibility of
being knocked down to the pedestrian or cyclist wearing this application. This
is problematic as drivers will likely be even less careful toward pedestrians
and cyclists which increases the most vulnerable persons (here I am thinking of
kids) as they do not have such mobile phones.

For this reason, I do not think the use case is neither appropriate, nor
convincing. The use case sounded to me a bit like the "IPv6 fridge". I would
rather consider such use case more appropriate for specific environments such
as construction sites where everyone may be required to carry such
applications. My recommendation would be to reformulate the use case for these
environments. This probably requires very minor changes in the text.

That said, I let you decide what to do with it, as it might also reflect a
personal view, and I do not want to slow the publication of document. Feel free
to let me know, if you need more information.


   For Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P), a vehicle can directly communicate
   with a pedestrian's smartphone by V2X without IP-RSU relaying.
   Light-weight mobile nodes such as bicycles may also communicate
   directly with a vehicle for collision avoidance using V2V.  Note that
   it is true that a pedestrian or a cyclist may have a higher risk of
   being hit by a vehicle if they are not with a smartphone in the
   current setting. """