Re: [Aeon] Comments and next step proposal

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<mailto: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<mailto:aeon-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Fan, Peng
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 7:48 PM
To: aeon@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto:Aeon@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aeon