Re: [alto] ALTO Draft ReCharter WG review

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Mon, 01 March 2021 03:38 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BBA83A13E3 for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 19:38:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.001
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[GB_MUTUALBENEFIT=2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 LGMH82VMKVBW for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 19:38:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E50EE3A13DD for <alto@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 19:38:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml735-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.226]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Dpm7G3c60z67sfF for <alto@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 11:33:14 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml735-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.216) by fraeml735-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.216) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 04:38:51 +0100
Received: from DGGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.32) by fraeml735-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.216) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.2106.2 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 04:38:50 +0100
Received: from DGGEML511-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.177]) by DGGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::89ed:853e:30a9:2a79%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0509.000; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 11:38:46 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: =?utf-8?B?5YiY6bmP?= <liupengyjy@chinamobile.com>, IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [alto] ALTO Draft ReCharter WG review
Thread-Index: AdcOSmqm6THd70dnRQO8Xg+VJOLW9g==
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2021 03:38:45 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAADDFC775@dggeml511-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.123.117]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAADDFC775dggeml511mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/klh63U4spnYH7pwi-4v0J9jxLM8>
Subject: Re: [alto] ALTO Draft ReCharter WG review
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization \(alto\) WG mailing list" <alto.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/alto/>
List-Post: <mailto:alto@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2021 03:38:58 -0000

Hi, Peng:
Thanks for kicking off the discussion, see my reply inline below.

发件人: 刘鹏 [mailto:liupengyjy@chinamobile.com]
发送时间: 2021年2月27日 10:23
收件人: IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>rg>; Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
主题: Re: [alto] ALTO Draft ReCharter WG review

Hi WG,

Here are some considerations of recharter:
I believe that the multi domain problem is worthy of attention. At present, operators also research in it, which may involve guaranteeing end-to-end network service in the future, such as delay, bandwidth, etc. There are some researches on cross domain deterministic network in the industry, which need some support from management and control plane.
[Qin]: thanks for sharing your use case, I think we may have many multi-domain applications. Multiple domain setting is not only referred to multiple administrative domains belonging to the same operator but also referred to cross operator domains.
Detnet can be a good use case for muit-domain setting, we may also consider many other use cases such as traffic from source to destination spanning across multiple administrative domain, the computing and storage are distributed in different administrative domain
Which require resource discovery or multi domain SFC case.

As stipulated by RFC7971, there is the network consisting of multiple domains and in many cases it is not possible to collect information across network borders.  This issue can be addressed by deploying ALTO server in each domain with hierarchy design or mesh design, and allow server to server communication.

In addition, we need to consider multi domain connectivity discovery, multi domain service discovery.
Who is the provider of Alto service is related to the deployment and cooperation mode. It may be difficult for operators to give too much detailed network information now. If the Alto service belongs to the operator, it may be used to help manage its own network. If Alto service belong to non operators, I think the issue of how to cooperate needs further discussion.
[Qin]:I think one good use case we have is MOWIE use case, i.e., adjust the bitrate to improve Cloud gaming QoE experience based on abstract network information to be exposed. For this use case, we can see a good collaboration between OTT provider and network operation, Probably they sign agreement for the mutual benefits reason. Also network operator will provide aggregate and abstract network information and expose very few information to the client, this is what ALTO is designed for.
The proposed work items related to MOWIE, feel free to review and evaluate it
“
o Protocol extensions to support a richer and extensible set of policy attributes in ALTO information update request and response. Such policy attributes may indicate information dependency (e.g., ALTO path-cost/QoS properties with dependency on real-time network  indications), optimization criteria (e.g., lowest latency/throughput network performance objective), and constraints (e.g., relaxation bound of optimization criteria, domain or network node to be traversed, diversity and redundancy of paths).

o Protocol extensions for facilitating operational automation tasks and improving transport efficiency. In particular, extensions to provide "pub/sub" mechanisms to allow the client to request and receive a diverse types (such as event-triggered/sporadic, continuous), continuous, customized feed of publisher-generated information. Efforts developed in other working groups such as MQTT Publish / Subscribe Architecture, WebSub, Subscription to YANG Notifications will be considered, and issues such as scalability (e.g., using unicast or broadcast/multicast, and periodicity of object updates) should be considered.
”
Thanks!
Regards,
Peng

Peng Liu | 刘鹏
China Mobile | 移动研究院
mobile phone:13810146105
email:  liupengyjy@chinamobile.com<mailto:liupengyjy@chinamobile.com>

发件人: Qin Wu<mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com>
时间: 2021/02/22(星期一)21:45
收件人: IETF ALTO<mailto:alto@ietf.org>;
抄送人: alto-chairs<mailto:alto-chairs@ietf.org>;alto-ads<mailto:alto-ads@ietf.org>;
主题: [alto] ALTO Draft ReCharter WG review
Hi, :
We have requested one hour session for ALTO WG meeting in the upcoming IETF 110, which is arranged on Friday, March 12, 14:30-15:30(UTC).
The goal is to boil down ALTO recharter and have consensus on charter contents in IETF 110.
To get this goal, an updated inline draft charter text for ALTO has just been posted to this list,

This charter has received a couple of rounds of informal review from WG members, chairs and our Ads from brief to deep thorough, 5 new chartered items have been listed.
We would like to solicit feedback on these new chartered items and your use case, deployment, idea corresponding to these new chartered items.
Sharing your past deployment story will also be appreciated.

============================================================================================
The ALTO working group was established in 2008 to devise a request/response protocol to allow a host to benefit from a server that is more cognizant of the network infrastructure than the host is.

The working group has developed an HTTP-based protocol and recent work has reported large-scale deployment of ALTO based solutions supporting applications such as content distribution networks (CDN).

ALTO is now proposed as a component for cloud-based interactive applications, large-scale data analytics, multi-cloud SD-WAN deployment, and distributed
computing. In all these cases, exposing network information such as abstract topologies and network function deployment location helps applications.

To support these emerging uses, extensions are needed, and additional functional and architectural features need to be considered as follows:

o Protocol extensions to support a richer and extensible set of policy attributes in ALTO information update request and response. Such policy attributes may indicate information dependency (e.g., ALTO path-cost/QoS properties with dependency on real-time network  indications), optimization criteria (e.g., lowest latency/throughput network performance objective), and constraints (e.g., relaxation bound of optimization criteria, domain or network node to be traversed, diversity and redundancy of paths).

o Protocol extensions for facilitating operational automation tasks and improving transport efficiency. In particular, extensions to provide "pub/sub" mechanisms to allow the client to request and receive a diverse types (such as event-triggered/sporadic, continuous), continuous, customized feed of publisher-generated information. Efforts developed in other working groups such as MQTT Publish / Subscribe Architecture, WebSub, Subscription to YANG Notifications will be considered, and issues such as scalability (e.g., using unicast or broadcast/multicast, and periodicity of object updates) should be considered.

o The working group will investigate the configuration, management, and operation of ALTO systems and may develop suitable data models.

o Extensions to ALTO services to support multi-domain settings. ALTO is currently specified for a single ALTO server in a single administrative domain, but a network may consist of
multiple domains and the potential information sources may not be limited to a certain domain. The working group will investigate extending the ALTO framework to (1) specify multi-ALTO-server protocol flow and usage guidelines when an ALTO service involves network paths spanning multiple domains with multiple ALTO servers, and (2) extend or introduce ALTO
services allowing east-west interfaces for multiple ALTO server integration and collaboration. The specifications and extensions should use existing services whenever possible. The specifications and extensions should consider realistic complexities including incremental deployment, dynamicity, and security issues such as access control, authorization (e.g., an ALTO server provides information for a network that the server has no authorization), and privacy protection in multi-domain settings.

o The working group will update RFC 7971 to provide operational considerations for recent protocol extensions (e.g., cost calendar, unified properties, and path vector) and new extensions that the WG develops. New considerations will include decisions about the set of information resources (e.g., what metrics to use), notification of changes either in proactive or reactive mode (e.g., pull the backend, or trigger just-in-time measurements), aggregation/processing of the collected information  (e.g., compute information and network information )according to the clients’ requests, and integration with new transport mechanisms (e.g., HTTP/2 and HTTP/3).

When the WG considers standardizing information that the ALTO server could provide, the following criteria are important
to ensure real feasibility:

- Can the ALTO server realistically provide (measure or derive) that information?

- Is it information that the ALTO client cannot find easily some other way?

- Is the distribution of the information allowed by the operator of the network? Does the exposure of the information introduce privacy and information leakage concerns?

Issues related to the specific content exchanged in systems that make use of ALTO are excluded from the WG's scope, as is the issue of dealing with enforcing the legality of the content. The WG will also not propose standards on how congestion is signaled, remediated, or avoided.

-Qin Wu (on behalf of chairs)