Re: [Aeon] Comments and next step proposal

Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com> Wed, 23 April 2014 03:31 UTC

Return-Path: <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: aeon@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aeon@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D2901A0024 for <aeon@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.472
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.472 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hvPmcdYyhx2c for <aeon@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9688B1A000E for <aeon@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BFZ08578; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 03:31:36 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 04:30:56 +0100
Received: from NKGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.34) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 04:31:34 +0100
Received: from NKGEML512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.206]) by nkgeml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.34]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:31:30 +0800
From: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
To: "Fan, Peng" <fanpeng@chinamobile.com>, "aeon@ietf.org" <aeon@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Aeon] Comments and next step proposal
Thread-Index: Ac9eHbq9rtqo/E0OR+qe+zafwgUmEgAhdSyA
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 03:31:29 +0000
Message-ID: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AE3D6C6@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <00a301cf5e20$ab403530$01c09f90$@chinamobile.com>
In-Reply-To: <00a301cf5e20$ab403530$01c09f90$@chinamobile.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.145]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AE3D6C6nkgeml512mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aeon/3uD2VrEw2WZlH5CASg0ktZr8Yc4
Cc: "gr@gsta.com" <gr@gsta.com>
Subject: Re: [Aeon] Comments and next step proposal
X-BeenThere: aeon@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application Enabled Open Networking \(AEON\)" <aeon.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/aeon>, <mailto:aeon-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/aeon/>
List-Post: <mailto:aeon@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:aeon-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aeon>, <mailto:aeon-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 03:31:45 -0000

Hi, all,

This is a real requirement from network operation perspective. Both ISPs and ICPs can benefit from this advance collaborative network model.

Rong Zhang and I are working on an gap analysis document, which we hope to share publically early next week.

Best regards,

Sheng

From: Aeon [mailto:aeon-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fan, Peng
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 7:48 PM
To: aeon@ietf.org
Subject: [Aeon] Comments and next step proposal

Hello all,

Based on our operational experience, we have submitted a draft: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fan-intarea-conet-ps-uc/
The purposes of this draft are to encourage less DPI in the network and propose more cooperation between OTT and Operators. Please kindly help to review the draft and comment here.

I have also reviewed the draft:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eckel-aeon-problem-statement/,
My comments are:

1)      Shall we consider to split the section 4 into an independent gap analysis document?

2)      For the requirements section, we agree Req. 1, 2, and 7, and just want to clarify:

a)       Req. 3 and 4, do you expect the interaction between network node and host here before the real traffic start?

b)       Req. 5 and 8 are not quite clear to us.

c)        I guess that it not always mandatory to apply Diffserv here, it could be optional?

3)      If you read our draft, we have more experience about the limitation of current DPI/DFI in section 3.

4)      Analysis of other existing solutions like ACL configuration can also be added in section 3.

Also for the draft:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eckel-aeon-use-cases/
Here I feel that too many use cases are listed here. You may consider narrowing down to a few use cases for which we have strong and specific needs, in order to get work further progressed.

After reading the current work proposed here, we are wondering whether two groups of people could work together to propose a BoF in the coming IETF meeting. To do that, we probably can:

1)      Merge the PS draft into one document.

2)      Write an independent use case document.

3)      Write an gap analysis document.
Once all three documents have finished, we could talk to ADs from both Internet and Transport area about the next step?

Thanks a lot for your consideration.

Best regards,
Peng