Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-raw-use-cases
draft-ietf-raw-use-cases
RAW CJ. Bernardos, Ed.
Internet-Draft UC3M
Intended status: Informational G.Z. Papadopoulos
Expires: 19 October 2023 IMT Atlantique
P. Thubert
Cisco
F. Theoleyre
CNRS
17 April 2023
RAW Use-Cases
draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-11
Abstract
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/
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
hop.
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
flows.
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
# #
# # #
# # #
# # #
# # #
# # #
# # #
# 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
needed.
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
control).
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
provided.
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
other).
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
[I-D.ietf-raw-industrial-requirements].
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
mastering.
* 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
consistent.
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
guaranteed.
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
communication.
* 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
failures.
* 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
control
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
Point).
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
characteristic.
* 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
availability.
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
requirements.
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,
<https://store.aci.aero/product/annual-world-airport-
traffic-report-2019/>.
Bernardos, et al. Expires 19 October 2023 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft RAW Use-Case Scenarios April 2023
[ARINC858P1]
ARINC, "INTERNET PROTOCOL SUITE (IPS) FOR AERONAUTICAL
SAFETY SERVICES PART 1 AIRBORNE IPS SYSTEM TECHNICAL
REQUIREMENTS", 2021,
<https://www.sae.org/standards/content/arinc858p1/>.
[DGT2021] Menendez, J. M., "Drones: asi es la vigilancia", 2021,
<https://revista.dgt.es/es/reportajes/2021/01ENERO/0126-
Como-funciona-un-operativo-con-drones.shtml>.
[DISNEY15] Wired, "Disney's $1 Billion Bet on a Magical Wristband",
March 2015,
<https://www.wired.com/2015/03/disney-magicband/>.
[EIP] http://www.odva.org/, "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.",
<http://www.odva.org/Portals/0/Library/
Publications_Numbered/
PUB00138R3_CIP_Adv_Tech_Series_EtherNetIP.pdf>.
[FAA20] U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), "Next Generation Air Transportation
System", 2019, <https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/>.
[Groshev2021]
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,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3098109>.
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-terminology]
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,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-
terminology-10>.
Bernardos, et al. Expires 19 October 2023 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft RAW Use-Case Scenarios April 2023
[I-D.ietf-raw-industrial-requirements]
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,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw-
industrial-requirements-00>.
[I-D.ietf-raw-ldacs]
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, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-raw-ldacs-14>.
[I-D.ietf-raw-technologies]
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,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw-
technologies-06>.
[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,
<https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository/publications/
economic-reports/airline-industry-economic-performance---
november-2020---report/>.
[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.
[IEEE802.1TSN]
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
[IEEE80211-RT-TIG]
IEEE, "IEEE 802.11 Real Time Applications TIG Report",
November 2018,
<http://www.ieee802.org/11/Reports/rtatig_update.htm>.
[IEEE80211BE]
Cavalcanti, D. and G. Venkatesan, "802.1 TSN over 802.11
with updates from developments in 802.11be", IEEE plenary
meeting , November 2020,
<https://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2020/new-
Cavalcanti-802-1TSN-over-802-11-1120-v02.pdf>.
[IEEE80211RTA]
IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE 802.11
Real Time Applications TIG Report", November 2018.
[ISA100] ISA/ANSI, "ISA100, Wireless Systems for Automation",
<https://www.isa.org/isa100/>.
[KEAV20] T. Keaveney and C. Stewart, "Single European Sky ATM
Research Joint Undertaking", 2019,
<https://www.sesarju.eu/>.
[KOB12] Kober, J., Glisson, M., and M. Mistry, "Playing catch and
juggling with a humanoid robot.", 2012,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/HUMANOIDS.2012.6651623>.
[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,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8703476>.
[Maurer2022]
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,
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcip.2022.100549>.
[ODVA] http://www.odva.org/, "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.
[PROFINET] http://us.profinet.com/technology/profinet/, "PROFINET is
a standard for industrial networking in automation.",
<http://us.profinet.com/technology/profinet/>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7554>.
[RFC8557] Finn, N. and P. Thubert, "Deterministic Networking Problem
Statement", RFC 8557, DOI 10.17487/RFC8557, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8557>.
[RFC8578] Grossman, E., Ed., "Deterministic Networking Use Cases",
RFC 8578, DOI 10.17487/RFC8578, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8578>.
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9030>.
[RFC9055] Grossman, E., Ed., Mizrahi, T., and A. Hacker,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security
Considerations", RFC 9055, DOI 10.17487/RFC9055, June
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9055>.
[RFC9317] Holland, J., Begen, A., and S. Dawkins, "Operational
Considerations for Streaming Media", RFC 9317,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9317, October 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9317>.
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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9372>.
Authors' Addresses
Carlos J. Bernardos (editor)
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad, 30
28911 Leganes, Madrid
Spain
Phone: +34 91624 6236
Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
URI: http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/
Georgios Z. Papadopoulos
IMT Atlantique
Office B00 - 114A
2 Rue de la Chataigneraie
35510 Cesson-Sevigne - Rennes
France
Phone: +33 299 12 70 04
Email: georgios.papadopoulos@imt-atlantique.fr
Pascal Thubert
Cisco Systems, Inc
Building D
45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
06254 MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis
France
Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
Email: pthubert@cisco.com
Fabrice Theoleyre
CNRS
ICube Lab, Pole API
300 boulevard Sebastien Brant - CS 10413
67400 Illkirch
France
Phone: +33 368 85 45 33
Email: fabrice.theoleyre@cnrs.fr
URI: https://fabrice.theoleyre.cnrs.fr/
Bernardos, et al. Expires 19 October 2023 [Page 29]
