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
>
>