Re: [Aeon] COllaborative NETwork vs AEON?

[Rong Zhang <[e-mail]>]

For my reading, draft-fan is not only mobile broadband, but also cover
fixed broadband, that's the reason why gap analysis does mention broadband
forum.

For my impress, draft-fan is more generic, and cover today's real use case
and operators's requirement, draft-eckel is more enterprise related and
less baking here.

I am not the author of this two documents, but recommend to start with the
operator driven and urgent requriement.

The best way to move forward to have generic PS/Use case which cover mobile
broadband, fixed broadband, enterprise network with limited use cases
Cheers,

Rong Zhang
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>  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:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Charles Eckel
> (eckelcu)
> *Sent:* Friday, May 09, 2014 12:18 AM
> *To:* Rong Zhang
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
>
> *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 <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Saturday, May 3, 2014 at 8:06 PM
> *To: *Charles Eckel <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *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) <[e-mail]>
> 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 <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Sunday, April 27, 2014 at 7:07 AM
> *To: *"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *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
>
>
>
>