Re: [Aeon] Comments and next step proposal

Hui Deng <denghui02@gmail.com> Wed, 23 April 2014 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <denghui02@gmail.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 F35BD1A03E2 for <aeon@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 3yYNs4KQlZVG for <aeon@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-x231.google.com (mail-ve0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8C1A1A03D3 for <aeon@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f177.google.com with SMTP id sa20so1270770veb.22 for <aeon@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=NGGeTPm8Czb5aZPyT0o4cdyi3F8Ds74NVkn6rw8a/bA=; b=zRPEWnsspLiFLhP/ttAwt9bN7mVOLUv9Rpll48YHedpaA7VZtKErN3YDmRXc+vcsuN I7az13tN7xKne6cKrZi+yOdG17x47lXNHj58xP3JsXdwWvE4Np69E9frkLuQBqaHWcDW ywREyBKut20uESPgvho9Iw93N7fIprQmrHLpLmmPZzSK6g6FLi92XV5o7xTskmKw5CiM lHamraRfiV+bXHaHctx22TVnUwMgonKDeQuHdQM0QIvpiP8aqcr7rIb7tlw3gDplCVwB 4fpPbfHSk0p/KmN+ewjOG3jEibifdXss79ciaPEUjG/wAjOteYna+2HnMY+Hq9BnPVIl x8/g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.231.72 with SMTP id te8mr355091vdc.54.1398265336979; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.252.132 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A24319940@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
References: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A24319940@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 23:02:16 +0800
Message-ID: <CANF0JMC+m20ZuGwJYvcyob9wOG71m1-XJQssya2OOTQUziWvyA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Hui Deng <denghui02@gmail.com>
To: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0111dc68b6672d04f7b704af"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aeon/FlC_RmcEpxziiEoyA8R9VuXUvkQ
Cc: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, "aeon@ietf.org" <aeon@ietf.org>, Rong Zhang <rzhang.ietf@gmail.com>, "Fan, Peng" <fanpeng@chinamobile.com>, Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.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 15:02:25 -0000

We may also look at this draft for the long time submission.:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-pcp-mobile-deployment-04

-Hui


2014-04-23 22:47 GMT+08:00 Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) <tireddy@cisco.com>:

>  Agreed it’s a problem that interests other operators too.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-penno-pcp-mobile-qos-00 explains the
> problem and solution for OTT working with Mobile Network.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Tiru
>
>
>
> *From:* Aeon [mailto:aeon-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Rong Zhang
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 23, 2014 1:41 PM
> *To:* Sheng Jiang
> *Cc:* gr@gsta.com; aeon@ietf.org; Fan, Peng
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Aeon] Comments and next step proposal
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Speaking as the operator, I do see this trend that OTT are working with
> operators today which will help to improve the mobile internet user
> experience dramatically.
>
>
>
> I have one basic comment that current documents have n't talked about 3GPP
> PCRF Rx interface which will allow OTT to work with today's mobile
> operator, I will work with Sheng to write the gap analysis document by
> including how IETF work could be a complimentary to 3GPP's specificaiton.
>
>
>
> I am planning to attend next IETF meeting, and hope BoF will happen, I
> personally feel it is more Intarea scope than transport.
>
>
>
> Cheers.
>
>
>
> -Rong ZHANG
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aeon mailing list
> Aeon@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aeon
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aeon mailing list
> Aeon@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aeon
>
>