[Aeon] Comments and next step proposal

["Fan, Peng" <[e-mail]>]

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