IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Aeon] COllaborative NETwork vs AEON?

"Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com> Thu, 08 May 2014 18:48 UTC

Return-Path: <eckelcu@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 348541A00D3 for <aeon@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 May 2014 11:48:35 -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 nZZNRLsEPgzJ for <aeon@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 May 2014 11:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 132DC1A00D8 for <aeon@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 May 2014 11:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8032; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1399574908; x=1400784508; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=+oipCyDQPF/iVIqqjSbswwTWHYfF2rLr8sgcjKinsrM=; b=EcKvCJeP5lzg5c1BlFBaAjpFEcVDGcCrE/v3jq/SO3x4lj1I08qtajg2 uyCjctsBk5P8y9vWjYA8MhViy1Cv1YhrboWi/T0arEQFXy9ix+B3mD5Db MK6vS850m7LgQ4repTTdqft0be9PbzJVNLbQtsM1+ZhtM7azPUa3/pfIg Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiUFAH/Qa1OtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABZgkJET1jFYQGBExZ0giUBAQEEeRACAQgOAwMBAigHIREUCQgCBA4FCRKIEgMRDclxDYYvF4w7gUYBAT4RB4Q/BJdGgXKNGoVhgzZtgQk5
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,1012,1389744000"; d="scan'208,217";a="42210075"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 May 2014 18:48:28 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com [173.36.12.83]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s48ImSx9001202 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 8 May 2014 18:48:28 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.3.148]) by xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com ([173.36.12.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 8 May 2014 13:48:27 -0500
From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
To: Rong Zhang <rzhang.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Aeon] COllaborative NETwork vs AEON?
Thread-Index: AQHPYiIfSItL6wB6l0mtXnh0e1H/d5stt2sAgAJjtgCABttDgA==
Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 18:48:27 +0000
Message-ID: <CF911A2D.27AE8%eckelcu@cisco.com>
References: <CABYVfymcBzAiNxcS75oMBnX-3t+kSQxd1D-aUeek2dHCKcZm+Q@mail.gmail.com> <CF895D52.276D6%eckelcu@cisco.com> <CABYVfy=P-5iczCLwrqgOZCTq1a2srvrftVngFq_TEbE+jHrNyA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABYVfy=P-5iczCLwrqgOZCTq1a2srvrftVngFq_TEbE+jHrNyA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030
x-originating-ip: [10.154.176.26]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CF911A2D27AE8eckelcuciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aeon/aeZ7bJfZCVH2QJtHac_CkJvHhkA
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: Thu, 08 May 2014 18:48:35 -0000

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email