Re: [Aeon] COllaborative NETwork vs AEON?
"Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com> Fri, 09 May 2014 05:44 UTC
Return-Path: <tireddy@cisco.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 B18D51A01E7
for <aeon@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 May 2014 22:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.151
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.151 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651,
SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 MWXmzzXUjyxx for <aeon@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Thu, 8 May 2014 22:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94])
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C8C61A01E5
for <aeon@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 May 2014 22:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;
d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=20567; q=dns/txt;
s=iport; t=1399614277; x=1400823877;
h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version;
bh=XY9LcOqauJ140pw2D3E+xRL+Utymej2swHXN60YLTfM=;
b=KJXa1y45CjuJue00QZPvZ8OMuIl4p75USe+R0AFJ9jMW3HqV70mPMrD2
D2i3LpuXMzrZVP1dmed8gEi2OxboDTUE7bI6SCjIQMjub6FdLL8Tu02UP
gBHf8muokV9sQgSq19+M+CxAQxjnd+MINoiDtL7GHv1f/3Zjm0ANenfMN Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag0FADdqbFOtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABZgkJET1i8Ooh+AYEVFnSCJQEBAQQtTBIBCBEDAQEBCxYHKBEUCQkBBAENBQgBEogSAxENyiQNhjMXjDuBRgEBHiARBoMsgRUEl1CDLotfhWGDNm2BCTk
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,1016,1389744000";
d="scan'208,217";a="42361802"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157])
by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 May 2014 05:44:36 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com [173.36.12.86])
by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s495iamt011630
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL);
Fri, 9 May 2014 05:44:36 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.104]) by
xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com ([173.36.12.86]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 9
May 2014 00:44:35 -0500
From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>
To: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>, Rong Zhang
<rzhang.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Aeon] COllaborative NETwork vs AEON?
Thread-Index: Ac9rSbzwsPjvRU3uSQaPZ1uDZX4qZA==
Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 05:44:34 +0000
Message-ID: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A24324321@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.65.60.206]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A24324321xmbrcdx10ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aeon/I-vqUKzxhFfNCO2GmqHHvGgxTSM
Cc: "aeon@ietf.org" <aeon@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Aeon] COllaborative NETwork vs AEON?
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: Fri, 09 May 2014 05:44:44 -0000
draft-fan-intarea-conet-ps-uc-00 is specific to Mobile Networks where it has tie-up with third party content providers. It's very similar to use case described in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eckel-aeon-use-cases-01#section-2.5. draft-eckel-aeon-problem-statement is not discussing any use cases and but the limitations with existing solutions and requirements for solving the problem. It can be updated to include the requirement to solve the problem of identifying over-the-top services which is a problem even in Enterprise networks. -Tiru From: Aeon [mailto:aeon-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Charles Eckel (eckelcu) Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 12:18 AM To: Rong Zhang Cc: aeon@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Aeon] COllaborative NETwork vs AEON? Hi Rong, Thanks for clarifying. There are pros and cons between combining topics into a single document vs. having several smaller documents. It would be relatively straightforward to divide the drafts as you suggest, and it would probably simplify merging information in the AEON and CONET drafts as well. Cheers, Charles From: Rong Zhang <rzhang.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:rzhang.ietf@gmail.com>> Date: Saturday, May 3, 2014 at 8:06 PM To: Charles Eckel <eckelcu@cisco.com<mailto:eckelcu@cisco.com>> Cc: "aeon@ietf.org<mailto:aeon@ietf.org>" <aeon@ietf.org<mailto:aeon@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [Aeon] COllaborative NETwork vs AEON? Hi Charles, What I mean is that draft-eckel-aeon-problem-statement-01 have too many use cases and solutions related content, but I see: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-fan-intarea-conet-ps-uc-00.txt quite focus on problem statement, so I would like to suggest that we start from second draft about PS, some of your draft could be merged into that draft. and then we could have seperate requirement draft( which maybe from AEON PS), and another gap analsysis draft. cheers. Rong Zhang On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <eckelcu@cisco.com<mailto:eckelcu@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi Rong, Sorry for the delay in responding. I am not sure I understand what you are asking for here, but perhaps this previous thread will be of help: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/aeon/current/msg00033.html Cheers, Charles From: Rong Zhang <rzhang.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:rzhang.ietf@gmail.com>> Date: Sunday, April 27, 2014 at 7:07 AM To: "aeon@ietf.org<mailto:aeon@ietf.org>" <aeon@ietf.org<mailto:aeon@ietf.org>> Subject: [Aeon] COllaborative NETwork vs AEON? Hello all, I have been observing the comments here, it seems that some operators are discussing the current problems about COllaborative NETwork and how current 3GPP Rx is not sufficient, and also some requirements and gap analysis. But for Aeon's case, we haven't seen any operators illustrating how they are similarl between COllaborative NETwork and AEON's problem. Can anybody from AEON kindly help to elaborate more here? cheers, Rong Zhang
- [Aeon] COllaborative NETwork vs AEON? Rong Zhang
- Re: [Aeon] COllaborative NETwork vs AEON? Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
- Re: [Aeon] COllaborative NETwork vs AEON? Rong Zhang
- Re: [Aeon] COllaborative NETwork vs AEON? Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
- Re: [Aeon] COllaborative NETwork vs AEON? Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: [Aeon] COllaborative NETwork vs AEON? Rong Zhang
- Re: [Aeon] COllaborative NETwork vs AEON? Rong Zhang
- Re: [Aeon] COllaborative NETwork vs AEON? Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)